AG Wilson Announces Proposed Settlement in OhioHealth Antitrust Case
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson announced that the Ohio Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. Department of Justice have reached a proposed settlement with OhioHealth in an antitrust case aimed at opening the door for insurers to give patients more information about lower-cost healthcare options.
The proposed settlement, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, would stop OhioHealth from enforcing contract terms that allegedly limited how insurers could guide patients toward lower-cost providers or share information about the price and availability of alternative healthcare options.
“Healthcare works best when patients have clear choices and honest information,” Wilson said. “This settlement promotes fairness and creates a better system for everyone.”
The case began in February, when then-Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost joined the U.S. Department of Justice in filing a federal antitrust lawsuit against OhioHealth. The lawsuit alleged that OhioHealth used its market strength in central Ohio to require insurers to accept contract terms that limited competition and made it harder for patients and employers to access lower-cost health plan options.
At the time, Yost said consumers lose when competition is blocked.
“My office stands with the Justice Department in our determination to eliminate these types of unfair practices and protect Ohioan’s wallets,” Yost said in February.
The lawsuit alleged that OhioHealth prevented insurers from sharing information with patients about the cost or availability of alternative healthcare providers and from encouraging patients to choose lower-cost providers for comparable care. State and federal officials argued those restrictions reduced competition among providers and made it more difficult for patients to compare healthcare options.
Under the proposed settlement, OhioHealth would be prohibited from enforcing contract provisions that limit insurers from sharing price, cost, quality or other information with patients that could influence their choice of healthcare provider. OhioHealth also would be barred from restricting insurers from encouraging patients to seek care from lower-cost providers.
The proposed final judgment also says contract provisions that prohibit, deter, prevent or penalize steering, steered plans or transparency would be void and unenforceable. OhioHealth would be required to notify insurers that those provisions are no longer valid and take steps to comply with the agreement.
According to the proposed final judgment, OhioHealth consented to the agreement without trial or adjudication and without the judgment being considered evidence against, or an admission by, any party on issues of fact or law.
The agreement also calls for compliance measures, including notice to relevant insurers, written reports, and the appointment of a court-approved monitor to oversee OhioHealth’s compliance. Unless extended by the court, the proposed final judgment would expire 10 years after it is entered, with the possibility of termination after five years if federal officials determine it is no longer necessary or in the public interest.
OhioHealth owns or manages hospitals and outpatient facilities throughout Ohio. The lawsuit alleged the healthcare system’s contracting restrictions violated the federal Sherman Act and Ohio’s Valentine Act, which both prohibit anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers.
The proposed settlement remains subject to court approval.
