Health system's lawsuit to go ahead
A federal antitrust lawsuit over competition among Pittsburgh's health care giants will proceed now that the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take the case.
West Penn Allegheny Health System filed the lawsuit in April 2009 alleging competitor UPMC and insurance giant Highmark Inc. conspired to monopolize the health care market and drive the struggling hospital system out of business.
The case will return to U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab, who in October 2009 dismissed it. West Penn Allegheny appealed the decision, and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals last year overturned Schwab's dismissal. In January, Highmark and UPMC filed separate appeals of that decision to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear them.
UPMC said in a statement it was disappointed the court would not review the case. But, health system officials questioned the future of the lawsuit considering Highmark is poised to acquire West Penn Allegheny in a $475 million deal.
"Given Highmark's recently announced plan to acquire West Penn Allegheny, however, those allegations have even less credibility now than when they were first raised more than two years ago," UPMC said. "UPMC looks forward to presenting the facts in U.S. District Court."
West Penn Allegheny spokeswoman Kelly Sorice said the health system doesn't comment on pending litigation. Highmark spokesman Michael Weinstein did not respond to a request for comment.
Schwab will have to take up a case he once dismissed. But it's not unusual for federal judges to have their dismissals overturned, said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor.
"It's just part of the day-to-day work of being a federal judge," Hellman said. "Sometimes a higher court disagrees."
In 2009, Schwab said West Penn Allegheny's lawsuit was "long on innuendo" but "short on any plausible facts" in tossing the case. But the appeals court disagreed, stating that the health system's claims might have merit.
"Viewed as a whole, these allegations plausibly suggest that UPMC has engaged in anti-competitive conduct, that UPMC has competed with West Penn on some basis other than merits," the 2010 appeals court decision stated.
"Whether or not it's plausible is something that reasonable judges can disagree on," Hellman said.
West Penn Allegheny alleged that UPMC charged Highmark less than other insurers for medical procedures in exchange for Highmark paying UPMC better reimbursement rates than other hospital systems.
West Penn Allegheny lost $48.8 million from operations in the nine months ended March 31, according to the most recent financial statement it has released. Its full-year results are expected to be released at the end of this month.
UPMC, by comparison, reported net income of $726.8 million for the year ended June 30.
While Highmark and UPMC fight allegations that they worked together, the two health care giants are embroiled in their own battles. Highmark's decision to try to acquire West Penn Allegheny spurred UPMC to drop negotiations with the insurer over new reimbursement contracts. Without a contract, Highmark members will have to pay out-of-network charges at UPMC facilities after June 30, 2013.
Highmark and West Penn Allegheny were expected to reach a final agreement on the terms of Highmark's acquisition by the end of September, Highmark CEO Dr. Kenneth Melani said last month.
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.