The US District Court of Rhode Island finds that a dominant health insurer’s refusal to negotiate in good faith with a healthcare provider in an attempt to block its market entry can be contrary to the Sherman Act (Steward Health Care System / Blue Cross)

This article has been nominated for the 2019 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards.

On April 23, a federal court in Rhode Island fired a warning shot over the bow of dominant health insurers across the country, holding that a refusal to negotiate in good faith with a healthcare provider that focuses population health management in an attempt to block its entry could violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The court denied Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island’s motion for summary judgment on claims that it blocked the acquisition of a financially-troubled Rhode Island hospital, Landmark Medical Center, by a Massachusetts hospital system, Steward Health, which sought to bring its innovative population health-management business model to Rhode Island. According to the Court, a reasonable jury could conclude that Blue Cross’s aggressive negotiating approach with

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

Quotation

Herbert Allen, Mitchell Raup, The US District Court of Rhode Island finds that a dominant health insurer’s refusal to negotiate in good faith with a healthcare provider in an attempt to block its market entry can be contrary to the Sherman Act (Steward Health Care System / Blue Cross), 23 April 2018, e-Competitions Insurance, Art. N° 90015

Visites 88

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues