CVS to Pay $40M for Insurance Education to Gain Approval of Aetna Deal
As part of about a dozen conditions, the retail pharmacy giant also agreed that New Yorkers will not pay, in insurance premiums or drug prices, to finance the $69 billion acquisition, which is expected to close this week.
November 27, 2018 at 11:02 AM
3 minute read
Despite threats to the contrary, New York state regulators have approved CVS Health's proposed acquisition of Aetna Inc., paving the way for the $69 billion deal to close this week. But the merger will cost CVS $40 million paid to the state over three years for health insurance education and require the fulfillment of about a dozen other conditions.
New York State Department of Financial Services superintendent Maria Vullo announced Monday that CVS has agreed that “New Yorkers will not pay to finance this acquisition, in insurance premiums, drug prices or otherwise,” according to the agency's decision and order approving the deal. During a public hearing in October, Vullo expressed concerns that CVS, which had to borrow $40 billion for the acquisition, could raise insurance premiums for millions of residents.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced in October that it would approve the Woonsocket, Rhode Island-based retail pharmacy giant's purchase of Hartford, Connecticut-based Aetna, assuming the latter divests its Medicare Part D prescription drug plan for businesses and individuals. Connecticut regulators also approved the deal last month, but New York remained wary and the only apparent roadblock to the merger.
In addition to her concern about potential premium rate increases, Vullo also expressed worry about increased pharmaceutical costs, data privacy issues, community support and CVS' ability to do business statewide, “in a manner that serves New York's communities fairly and equitably, including those communities most in need of access to affordable health care services.”
Many of those issues appear to be addressed in the conditions. For the deal to go through, for example, Aetna and CVS have agreed to provide “enhanced consumer and health insurance rate protections, privacy controls, cybersecurity compliance, and a $40 million commitment to support health insurance education and enrollment and other consumer health protections,” according to the Department of Financial Services' news release announcing the deal.
In addition, CVS also agreed that Aetna cannot pay dividends without the express prior approval of the department for three years or discontinue current products throughout the Aetna New York service area for the same length of time.
“Roll-out of health care measures must be done fairly and equitably in New York, including in underserved communities,” according to the conditions, which also include a guarantee from CVS that participating provider networks for insured products maintain access to nonchain New York pharmacies for three years.
For its part, Connecticut received, as part of its approval, an assurance that CVS will keep Aetna in Hartford for at least 10 years.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHealth Care Giants Sue FTC, Allege Lina Khan Using Loaded Process to Vilify Pharmacy Benefit Managers
3 minute readHigh-Flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
2 minute readAs AI Transforms Drug Development, FDA Is Scrambling to Figure Out Guardrails
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250