In a recent trend, we see a wave of complaints lodged by patients against healthcare providers, accusing them of antitrust violations. The crux of these allegations is essentially that the accused medical providers have engaged in anti-competitive behavior, resulting in economic harm to the patients. One particular case, recently adjudicated in Connecticut, sheds light on the standing issues related to such claims, highlighting the intricacies of antitrust standing evaluations.
The legalities involved in such cases can be rather complex, and this recent case presents a perfect opportunity to examine these complexities in greater detail. Typically, such claims are brought by commercially-insured patients directly suing a health care system. However, these plaintiffs must meet certain criteria to establish standing – the legal right to sue. Proving economic harm resulting from the defendant’s allegedly anti-competitive conduct is one such criterion.
To meet this burden, there are some key questions plaintiffs need to answer: Can a patient really show economic harm due to supposed anti-competitive behavior by a hospital, especially when they are protected by commercial insurance? When and how does the alleged anti-competition translate into an economic injury for patients? These questions affect the standing of the patient to bring forward a case and ultimately the viability of the lawsuit.
It is essential that attorneys representing healthcare companies and hospitals understand the implications of this recent case and others like it, and work together closely with their clients to work through potential legal complexities and establish a safe, fair and competitive business environment. The case shows us that for any accusations to stick, a direct link between the defendant’s anti-competitive conduct and the plaintiff’s alleged harm must be shown.
For more information on this topic and a deeper understanding of the Connecticut case, visit JDSupra.