The New York Times recently devoted more than 1,000 words to the legal dispute between UnitedHealthcare and the private-equity-backed, physician-owned practice U.S. Anesthesia Partners (USAP). It’s an illuminating read—here are the highlights.
USAP, representing doctors from Texas and Colorado, has accused United of stifling competition in order to boost its own profits. The Texas USAP doctors allege that United used its substantial industry influence to pressure hospitals and surgeons to stop referring to USAP anesthesiologists. The Colorado group’s allegations got more colorful, claiming that United and its heavies (subsidiaries) essentially enacted a group boycott, squeezing the doctors from all sides “like a boa constrictor.”
The anesthesiologists made their stance brutally clear: “United and its affiliates have extended their tentacles into virtually every aspect of healthcare, allowing United to squeeze, choke, and crush any market participant that stands in the way of United’s increased profits.”
United’s “No, we didn’t!” response was, to us, fully expected. In fact, the insurance conglomerate essentially shrugged off the suit as a smoke-and-mirrors maneuver. It contends that the lawsuit is simply meant “to distract from the real reason that [USAP] no longer participates in our network,” which United says is all about USAP’s reimbursement rate demands.
In the meantime, there has been a string of similar stories about instances in which United has apparently pressured private-equity-backed physician groups (like Envision Healthcare, Mednax, US Anesthesia Partners, and TeamHealth) to accept lower rates, with the threat of dismissal from United’s network if the groups don’t agree to its terms.
