Sutter Health Pays $575M to Resolve Claims of Anticompetitive Practices
Sutter Health admitted no wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement.
December 20, 2019 at 03:50 PM
3 minute read
The largest health care system in Northern California has agreed to pay $575 million to settle claims that it used its market power to artificially inflate health care prices in the Bay Area and the Sacramento Valley, Attorney General Xavier Becerra said Friday.
Sutter Health will make the payment to employers, unions and others covered under the class action and to attorneys working on the case. The Sacramento-based health care company will also limit what it charges for out-of-network services, increase price transparency and cooperate with a court-appointed monitor over the next decade, according to terms of the settlement filed in San Francisco Superior Court.
"This first-in-the-nation comprehensive settlement should send a clear message to the markets: if you're looking to consolidate for any reason other than efficiency that delivers better quality for a lower price, think again," Becerra said in a prepared statement.
Becerra was joined in the suit by the United Food and Compmercial Workers International Union, the Employers Benefit Trust and individual plaintiffs. In addition to the attorney general's office, the plaintiffs were represented by lawyers from firms including Pillsbury & Coleman; Farella Braun + Martel; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick; and McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry.
Becerra and the class counsel will ask for up to one-third of the monetary portion of the settlement for attorneys' fees and costs, according to the filing. The attorney general's office will additionally seek up to $11.2 million to cover litigation costs while the plaintiffs' counsel will ask for $13.8 million.
Lawyers from Keker, Van Nest & Peters; Jones Day; and Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller joined Sutter Health counsel as the defenders in the litigation.
Sutter Health admitted no wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement.
"We were able to resolve this matter in a way that enables Sutter Health to maintain our integrated network and ability to provide patients with access to affordable, high-quality care," Sutter senior vice president and general counsel Flo Di Benedetto said in an emailed statement. "Together with the Attorney General, the parties selected an experienced monitor who will oversee the agreement, which specifies parameters for contracting between Sutter Health and insurance companies going forward."
The plaintiffs originally sued Sutter Health in 2014 claiming the company's contract practices artificially inflated prices. The California attorney general filed similar claims against Sutter in 2018.
The case appeared headed to a months-long trial until the two sides announced in October they had reached a deal. The agreement is scheduled to go before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo on Feb. 25.
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 AllInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
Pharmacies Accuse GoodRx of 'Inviting Price-Fixing' in Series of Antitrust Class Actions
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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