Katherine Speegle, a partner at Duane Morris, noted that in addition to accusing OhioHealth of charging inflated prices, the DOJ alleges it impeded consumers' choices for insurance coverage and health care services.

“Something that a lot of people don’t always pay attention to is that the DOJ doesn’t always just look at price increases. It also looks at the elimination of consumer choice as a distinct harm,” she said.

Another important aspect of the case, Speegle said, is that it is one of the first major efforts by regulators to target anti-steering provisions since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Ohio v. American Express, which held that American Express did not violate antitrust law by preventing merchants from steering customers to cards with lower transaction fees.

“I would imagine that this case could have been of interest to the division because it’s another opportunity to take a run at steering provisions” in a different kind of market, she said.

To read the full text of this article, please visit Law.com (subscription required).