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 28, 2018 at 10:58 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
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
© 2025 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 Data Breach Class Actions Saw December Surge in NY Courts
Big Tech and Internet Companies Slammed With Consumer Class Actions in December
Amid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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