Analysis | Hartford Healthcare’s Latest Lawsuit Adds Critical Twist


The latest lawsuit against Hartford Healthcare (HHC) may seem vague and limited to health care, but it goes much further. There is overwhelming evidence that the prices of care in massive health systems like HHC are driving up the prices of care in Connecticut’s private health plans, and it’s getting worse.

A third antitrust lawsuit against HHC details how they’re skirting a new law banning anticompetitive behavior by enlisting independent practices in exclusivity agreements that prevent thousands of Connecticut doctors from signing with more affordable plans. New research links the broader impact of these price hikes to layoffs and other economic harms that go beyond health care. This is serious business.

HHC is a huge presence in Connecticut. According to HHC, they employ more than 41,000 people in nearly 500 locations and generate $5.4 billion in revenue annually. HHC includes seven hospitals, several of which are the only hospital in the area. HHC also includes behavioral health facilities, outpatient centers, urgent care centers, home care providers, rehabilitation and senior services providers.

The new lawsuit, filed by two Connecticut health plans, builds on two earlier lawsuits against HHC, one on behalf of consumers and the other filed by St. Francis, an HHC competitor. All three claim that HHC uses its significant monopoly power in certain areas of the state to limit competition and charge significantly higher prices throughout Connecticut. According to the complaint, residents of Meriden, Willimantic, Norwich and Torrington have access only to an HHC-owned hospital. These are referred to as “must-have” hospitals. Insurers cannot offer plans to residents of those areas without paying HHC’s high prices.

But it gets worse. Even in Bridgeport and Hartford, where there are competing hospitals, HHC can require that their hospitals and other facilities be included in insurers’ networks, even if they are more expensive and of lower quality than competing hospitals, as a condition of getting the hospitals they need. When they know they have to be included, they can charge exorbitant prices.

It is important to note that HHC’s monopoly powers only raise costs for private insurance and employer plans, which must negotiate prices with HHC. Medicare and Medicaid prices are set by the government and are not subject to HHC’s market leverage.

According to the latest complaint, HHC also uses its market power to block more affordable health plan options that save people in other states money. Tiered plans give patients the option of using higher-quality, lower-priced providers at a lower cost to them. Patients can still choose to access care from lower-tier providers; they just have to pay more.

But Connecticut doesn’t have tiered plans because HHC uses its monopoly power to get better tiers than they deserve, based on price or quality. Tiered plans can save patients money, lower everyone’s insurance premiums and improve the quality of care while preserving consumer choice. But because of HHC’s anticompetitive conduct alleged in the lawsuit, tiered plans are not enforceable in Connecticut.

It’s not that the state hasn’t tried to fix the problem. A hard-fought law passed in 2023 made these anti-competitive contract clauses illegal. But the latest lawsuit explains how HHC is skirting the law.

Integrated Care Partners LLC (ICP), a for-profit subsidiary of HHC, offers medical practices highly lucrative benefits for joining its network. Practices can only receive referrals from HHC facilities if they join ICP. Providers who join ICP also receive HHC’s higher monopoly payment rates, significantly higher than they could negotiate independently. ICP practices also receive access to expensive electronic medical records systems that are integrated with HHC’s hospitals and providers, as well as access to exclusive surgical technology.

The offer is hard to resist. ICP currently has 2,173 physicians and advanced practice providers in its network, a significant portion of all providers in Connecticut. In many areas of the state, all providers in several specialties are locked into ICP’s network.

According to the latest lawsuit, in exchange for all these benefits, ICP requires its providers to contract exclusively with HHC and refer only to providers within the HHC network. This effectively prevents the insurer from building a cost-effective, competitive network that can offer lower costs and better quality care to consumers and employers. Trapping referrals for care and profits within the HHC network limits patients’ options and access to care. While ICP affiliates may not technically be employees of HHC, they are bound by HHC’s exclusionary policies. According to the complaint, this lack of competition constitutes illegal price fixing and serves only to increase HHC’s profits and wages.

While this lack of competition makes health care unaffordable for Connecticut employers and consumers, new research shows it also hurts the community’s employment and economic health. In a paper published last month, researchers found that communities with higher health care prices due to monopolistic health care systems lost non-health care jobs as health care costs rose.

In addition to layoffs, wages have fallen and tax revenues that fund safety-net services have fallen. The bigger the monopolies, the worse the impact on local economies. Not surprisingly, researchers also found rising suicide and overdose rates in communities. The worst impact was felt by workers earning $20,000 to $100,000 a year. Health systems’ claims of increased efficiency from consolidation are not supported by the evidence.

The attorneys and plaintiffs who brought these lawsuits provide a critical public service to make health care affordable here. And Connecticut lawmakers did the right thing by passing a law last year to preserve competition and consumer choice. They all deserve our thanks and support.

But HHC has apparently found a way around the law. Hopefully, the combination of lawsuits and legislative efforts to plug the holes will ultimately lead to sustainable access to affordable care, and patients will have a choice.

More from Ellen Andrews

OP-ED | Patient-Centered or Physician-Centered? Primary Care Planning Is Off Track

Several state agencies and their committees are planning to expand primary care in Connecticut—a good thing. But it’s driven by primary…

read on

OP-ED | Lawmakers hear how RI saved 2 hospitals from private equity, other solutions to high insurance premiums

Ellen Andrews said Parliament on Friday heard from six national and local experts on specific policy tools to help combat the healthcare market…

read on

ANALYSIS | Covered Connecticut is a good start, but needs care

Covered Connecticut – Statewide Alternative to Public Health Insurance or Restore Funding That Was Cut from Parental Insurance HUSKY –…

read on

OP-ED | Congress Wants to Lower Drug Prices to Fund Important Priorities

Economists say rising health care costs are crowding out other budget priorities. Ellen Andrews says policymakers want to make big investments and plan…

read on

OP-ED | Insulin – Once a Gift, Now Used for Greed

Insulin prices are now unrelated to the cost of producing it. While newer versions of insulin cost between $3.69 and $6.16 per vial,…

read on

ANALYSIS | Connecticut Needs to Focus on Real Health Care Reform

Voters demanded more affordable health care last year, but Connecticut lawmakers responded with weak solutions that delay the problem…

read on

OP-ED | Controversial New Alzheimer’s Drug Could Destroy Budget

Questionable efficacy aside, the price of a new Alzheimer’s drug is simply unacceptable.

read on

ANALYSIS | Who in healthcare made money from COVID?

In the face of pandemic heroism, Ellen Andrews writes that some of the biggest winners – financially – are the health care sector

read on

OP-ED | When Data Becomes an Excuse to Prevent Change

Ellen Andrews writes that it is one thing to look at data, but it is quite another to constantly analyze it in order to avoid making difficult decisions…

read on

OP-ED | Remember the Value of Public Health After COVID Subsides

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed a bright light on the weakness of the U.S. public health system. Countries with strong public health systems have fared much better…

read on

OP-ED | The drug innovation argument works both ways

Ellen Andrews responds to our latest column by Pfizer’s John Burkhardt, says proposed tax on excessive drug price increases is a good idea

read on

OP-ED | Improving the Public Option

Ellen Andrews Shares Her Recipe for Improving Connecticut’s Public Option

read on

OP-ED | Real talk would lead to lower healthcare costs

Why is it so hard to get people across the healthcare system on the same page and working together to solve problems? People tend to…

read on

ANALYSIS | If the COVID vaccine is free for patients, who pays for it?

Federal law ensures that the COVID-19 vaccine will be made available to every American for free. So who pays for it? Since it’s health care,…

read on

OP-ED | The state should establish uniform, public standards for health care rationing

Despite pressure from patient advocates, Connecticut has not developed a statewide policy for rationing care for COVID-19 patients.

read on

OP-ED | Recession is Coming, and Healthcare is at the Center of It

After the longest economic recovery in U.S. history, we had long expected a recession. We knew that when it came, Connecticut healthcare…

read on