Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Attacks Against Blue Cross Blue Shield's Most Favored Nations Clauses Continue

Publications

December 14, 2011

Aetna recently filed a civil action against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan ("BCBS") seeking injunctions, treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs for violations of federal and state antitrust laws. Aetna's lawsuit is the latest action filed against Michigan's dominant health insurer for including allegedly anticompetitive Most Favored Nation ("MFN") clauses in its contracts with Michigan hospitals.

The challenge to BCBS' MFN contracts began in October 2010 when the Department of Justice ("DOJ") sued BCBS over the provisions, alleging that BCBS used MFN clauses to force hospitals to charge competing insurers higher rates than were charged to BCBS for the same services and, additionally, to ensure that the rates charged to BCBS never exceeded that of any other insurer. For an overview of the DOJ lawsuit, see our previous Antitrust and Trade Practices Alert.

Government antitrust actions and investigations often spur private actions by consumers or competitors seeking to take advantage of the treble damages authorized by the federal antitrust laws. Aetna is the first competitor-insurer to file suit against BCBS related to its Michigan MFN clauses. The individual hospitals are not named as plaintiffs, but, like the DOJ, Aetna asserts that BCBS' contracts with Michigan hospitals amount to agreements in restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Michigan's Antitrust Reform Act. Aetna claims that these violations led to higher costs to consumers and other insurers, loss of about two-thirds of Aetna's business and Aetna's partial withdrawal from the Michigan market.

Aetna's complaint largely tracks the DOJ's lawsuit, claiming that BCBS used its power to force hospitals to agree to one of two distinct MFN clauses. In the "MFN-plus" contract provisions, hospitals must agree to charge other insurers more than it charged BCBS for the same services. In the "Equal-to MFN" provisions entered into with smaller community hospitals, BCBS allegedly agreed to pay more for services so long as the hospitals agreed to charge other insurers an equal or greater rate. This allegedly established a price floor at the BCBS rate, requiring the hospitals to force its other contracted insurers to pay higher rates to match or exceed the BCBS rate, despite these insurers already having negotiated a more favorable rate.

BCBS' attempt to dismiss the DOJ lawsuit this summer failed.

What’s Next?

These BCBS lawsuits are further representative of the attention that the healthcare industry has received in recent years by antitrust enforcers and also are illustrative of the larger ongoing battle between hospital systems and insurers to negotiate for provisions that reduce their respective healthcare costs. In order to limit liability and costs, healthcare companies must evaluate contracting practices prior to executing agreements and make sure antitrust compliance programs are in place to proactively address potential contracting pitfalls.


In Case You Missed It:

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.