West Penn Allegheny digs in heels
West Penn Allegheny Health System says Highmark Inc. can't force it to drop an antitrust lawsuit against rival UPMC, even though the state's largest insurer pledged $475 million to bail out the troubled health system.
Even after Highmark acquires West Penn Allegheny, the parent organization that would control the entities "cannot, absent a breach in its fiduciary duty to West Penn Allegheny, unilaterally order West Penn Allegheny to dismiss its antitrust action against UPMC," the health system said in a federal court filing on Tuesday.
Highmark spokesman Michael Weinstein responded unequivocally in an email to the Tribune-Review: "Once the Highmark-WPAHS (deal) is approved and consummated, we will drop the antitrust lawsuit."
The hospital system's court filing in Pittsburgh followed UPMC's request last week to put the three-year-old antitrust case on hold. UPMC reached an agreement on May 2 with Highmark in which the insurer would drop West Penn Allegheny's lawsuit once its acquisition is complete.
"West Penn Allegheny did not approve the putative settlement with UPMC, and Highmark does not have the authority to bind West Penn Allegheny in any way," the health system said. "After more than three years' delay, West Penn Allegheny is entitled to have this litigation proceed expeditiously without undue outside influence or interference, unfettered by the agreements of third parties."
Putting the case on hold would be counterproductive because the acquisition "may not occur," West Penn Allegheny said, noting the state Insurance Department might not approve the buyout and either party could walk away from it. "Under any such circumstances, a stay will have worked a considerable hardship on West Penn Allegheny."
West Penn Allegheny spokeswoman Kelly Sorice declined to comment, citing a policy to not discuss litigation.
Highmark has given the health system $150 million in grants and loans since June, when it announced the acquisition plan. The money covered financial losses and began renovations at two hospitals.
Highmark would fund the not-for-profit organization, known as the Ultimate Parent Entity, that would control it and West Penn Allegheny, and Highmark executives would staff it.
UPMC spokesman Paul Wood said the provision dealing with West Penn Allegheny's lawsuit is part of a larger agreement covering many issues. Yet, he said, UPMC expects Highmark to make good on its promises.
"While regrettable, West Penn Allegheny's decision to continue to pursue this lawsuit does not change anything about the May 2 agreement," he said.
The agreement, negotiated with pressure from Gov. Tom Corbett and state legislators, allows about 2 million Highmark members in the region to continue receiving care at UPMC's hospitals and from its doctors at in-network rates through the end of 2014. It ended a nearly yearlong standoff between the health care giants, sparked by Highmark's plan to acquire West Penn Allegheny.
The Corbett administration declined to comment yesterday.
West Penn Allegheny filed its antitrust lawsuit in 2009, alleging that Highmark and UPMC conspired to drive it out of business. After Highmark agreed to buy it, West Penn Allegheny dropped the insurer from the suit and amended it to allege predatory practices by UPMC.
Add Alex Nixon to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steelers kicker Boswell puts best foot forward
- Robert Morris drops to 0-5 after overtime loss to New Mexico St.
- McIntyre students hope Buddy Bench is beneficial to all
- Southmoreland wrestling team takes old-school approach
- Pittsburgh man charged with 56 counts after high-speed chase over weekend
- Steelers notebook: Tomlin not grooming successor to RB Williams
- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review athletes of the week: Sewickley Academy’s Jackson O’Neill, USC’s Emma Hasco
- Sounds of Christmas coming to Fay-West region
- Burrell school officials update education goals
- Occupying playoff spot on Thanksgiving good harbinger for Penguins
- Congressman visits Kistaco Farm in Kiski Township