Uriel Pharmacy Health and Welfare Plan et al. v. Advocate Aurora Health, Inc. et al.

Why this Matters:

The plaintiff, a self-insured employer, argues that certain anticompetitive practices by a dominant hospital violate federal and state antitrust laws. The challenged anticompetitive practices related to terms in the provider’s contracts with insurers, including all-or-nothing tying (requiring contracts with all services as a bundle), anti-steering/anti-tiering (preventing business from being directed to cheaper or higher-quality providers), and gag clauses (blocking the disclosure of price information), which  have been shown to drive up prices and increase premiums for consumers.

Potential Impact

The ability to thwart anticompetitive practices by dominant health care providers can help reduce health care prices and lower health care premiums for consumers.