US sues Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield
US alleges Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield discourages competition, raising hospital prices
The Justice Department alleged Monday in a lawsuit that Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield is discouraging competition by engaging in practices that raise hospital prices, conduct an assistant attorney general vowed to challenge anywhere else it is found in the United States.
The suit targets “most favored nation” clauses between Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield and health care providers which, according to the government, essentially guarantee that no competing health care plan can obtain a better rate.
Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield has most-favored-nation clauses or similar language in contracts with at least 70 of 131 general acute care hospitals in the state, the government alleges.
The lawsuit said that Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield intended to raise hospital costs for competing health care plans and reduce competition for the sale of health insurance.
“As a result, consumers in Michigan are paying more for their health care services and health insurance,” Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, who runs the Justice Department’s antitrust division, told reporters.
In some instances, the lawsuit states, Blue Cross has raised the prices it pays for hospital services in exchange for obtaining most-favored-nation clauses that raise the minimum prices hospitals can charge to Blue Cross competitors.
The state of Michigan joined the Justice Department in the case filed in federal court in Detroit.
In response, Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield said the lawsuit is seeking to restrict the nonprofit company’s ability to provide the most deeply discounted rates from Michigan hospitals. The company said that negotiated hospital discounts are a tool that Blue Cross uses to protect the affordability of health insurance for millions of Michigan residents.
“Our hospital discounts are a vital part of our statutory mission to provide Michigan residents with statewide access to health care at a reasonable cost,” the company said.
The lawsuit outlines two types of most-favored-nation clauses requiring a hospital to provide services to Blue Cross competitors either at higher prices than Blue Cross pays or at prices no less than Blue Cross pays.
In alleging violations of the Sherman Act and the Michigan Antitrust Reform Act, the government said that under the “MFN-plus” clause, Blue Cross negotiated agreements requiring 22 hospitals to charge some or all other commercial insurers more than the hospital charges Blue Cross. Under the other clause, Blue Cross has agreements requiring more than 40 small, community hospitals to charge other commercial health insurers at least as much as they charge Blue Cross.
Varney declined to say whether the Justice Department has open inquiries in other states of most-favored-nation clauses, which are not illegal unless they stifle competition.
Source: AP News
Mochila insert follows…