Judge tosses MultiPlan, UnitedHealthcare antitrust lawsuit 

Advertisement

A New York federal judge dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against UnitedHealthcare and MultiPlan that alleged the companies conspired to reduce reimbursement rates for an anesthesia services provider.

The lawsuit from Long Island Anesthesiologists alleged that UnitedHealthcare and MultiPlan conspired to lower rates by more than 80% after the federal No Surprises Act took effect in January 2022. The lawsuit alleges that MultiPlan acted on UnitedHealthcare’s behalf, using repricing tools and aggressive negotiation tactics to pressure providers into accepting reduced payments. 

U.S. District Court Judge Hector Gonzalez had previously dismissed the lawsuit that was first filed in 2022 but allowed Long Island Anesthesiologists to file an amended complaint. The judge said in his April 7 ruling that even with the additional allegations, the plaintiff “still fails to plausibly allege” that the companies entered into an unlawful agreement. 

Mr. Gonzalez said the amended complaint “spans 331 paragraphs but fails to include a single factual allegation that plausibly suggests United and MultiPlan conspired to restrain trade.” The judge also denied Long Island Anesthesiologists a chance to amend the complaint again, concluding that further attempts would be futile. 

MultiPlan, which rebranded as Claritev in February, is facing a series of lawsuits alleging the firm colluded with commercial payers in a price-fixing scheme to underpay providers by tens of billions annually. The company has consistently refuted the allegations, arguing that the lawsuits are “without merit and would ultimately increase prices for patients and employers.” 

The dismissal is another win for MultiPlan. In August, a California Superior Court judge tossed a lawsuit from a bankrupt health system that accused MultiPlan of forging a “hub, spoke, and rim” agreement with major payers to artificially reduce out-of-network reimbursement for providers. The judge sided with MultiPlan’s argument that reimbursement rates are not prices that can be fixed under the Cartwright Act.

Advertisement

Next Up in Payer

Advertisement