DC Judge Signals Skepticism of CVS-Aetna Merger
The hearing was set to last up to three days but ended Wednesday after Wu and executives from CVS and Aetna argued that the merger would not stifle competition.
June 05, 2019 at 06:12 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Late November Judge Richard Leon rose to the bench in his Washington, D.C., courtroom for what was expected to be a routine hearing as the Justice Department sought final approval of a settlement clearing CVS Health Corp.'s acquisition of Aetna Inc.
The hearing was supposed to address the appointment of an outside monitor to oversee the divestiture of Aetna's prescription drug plan business, a condition of the Justice Department's approval of the $69 billion merger. But Leon apparently had more on his mind.
Leon launched into a blistering statement, accusing the Justice Department of keeping him “in the dark, kind of like a mushroom” about CVS and Aetna formally consummating their $69 billion deal while his review of their settlement was pending. More than six months later, Leon has made clear that he has no intention of serving as a “rubber stamp,” as he put it then.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, Leon presided over an unprecedented hearing to examine whether the Justice Department adequately protected consumers in approving CVS' acquisition of Aetna. The proceeding was closely watched in antitrust circles, likened to a “mini trial” with witnesses testifying about a deal that received the Justice Department's blessing.
On Wednesday, as CVS and the Justice Department called their witnesses, Leon expressed skepticism that the settlement did enough to ensure continued competition in the health care industry.
Leon sharply questioned former Federal Trade Commission economist Lawrence Wu, the first witness called by CVS, about whether the newly combined company now possesses undue market power. Wu's questioning was led by Dechert partner Michael Cowie, with Leon occasionally jutting in.
Much of the testimony concerned CVS's pharmacy benefit management business, which administers prescription drug programs for health plans. Pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, effectively serve as middlemen between drug makers and pharmacies.
Wu, the president of NERA Economic Consulting, dismissed concerns that the acquisition of Aetna would give CVS unfair leverage allowing it to undercut competitors. Since 2011, Wu noted, CVS has served as the pharmacy benefit manager for Aetna under a 12-year contract.
But Leon said the acquisition put Aetna in a “very different” position with CVS.
“It's different now,” Leon said. “If they merge, they own it.”
“That's a very different posture, is it not?” he added.
Wu replied that many health plans use pharmacy benefit managers other than CVS's, which operates under the brand name “CVS Caremark.” Early in his testimony, Wu referred to the business as only “Caremark,” which appeared to frustrate Leon.
“Don't disassociate it from CVS. It's CVS's PBM,” he said.
Leon took a more reserved approach in his questioning Tuesday, when the American Medical Association and other groups opposed to the merger called witnesses. The hearing was set to last up to three days but ended Wednesday after Wu and executives from CVS and Aetna argued that the merger would not stifle competition.
The hearing marked Leon's latest run-in with the Justice Department's antitrust division. Last year, he rejected the Justice Department's challenge to AT&T's proposed acquisition of Time Warner, dealing the antitrust division a defeat in one of the most significant antitrust cases in decades.
During Wednesday's hearing, Leon gave a nod to that case when Wu drew a comparison between the AT&T-Time Warner deal and CVS's acquisition. At the mention of the AT&T deal Wednesday, Leon said, “This should be very interesting. I'm all ears.”
The three witnesses called Tuesday expressed concerns that the merger would further consolidate the health insurance market and drive up out-of-pocket costs for consumers. The Justice Department had asked leading up to the hearing to be allowed to cross-examine witnesses, but Leon rejected the request.
“We are not only losing a competitor,” said University of Southern California professor Neeraj Sood, an expert called by the American Medical Association. In Aetna, he said, “we are losing a strong competitor in this market.”
As a condition of approving the CVS deal, the Justice Department required Aetna to sell off its Medicare Part D prescription drug plan business to address antitrust concerns in that specific market. On Tuesday, Leon appeared to wrestle with his review should center on that market or extend more broadly.
“Should I limit myself to (prescription-drug plans) or look at how these entities that have merged will impact the greater market?” Leon said.
Sood demurred, saying that he wasn't a lawyer. But he argued that the CVS-Aetna merger raised broader issues across the health care industry.
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 AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5Partner Cuts: The Grim Reality of Post-Merger Integration
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
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