DOJ and Ohio AG Target OhioHealth in Antitrust Suit Over Restrictive Insurer Contracts

Sharing is caring!

Dominance in Central Ohio Under Fire (Image Credits: Unsplash)

Columbus, Ohio – The U.S. Department of Justice and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a civil antitrust lawsuit on February 20, 2026, accusing OhioHealth Corporation of imposing contract terms on insurers that suppress competition and raise healthcare costs for patients.[1][2]

Dominance in Central Ohio Under Fire

OhioHealth commands more than 35% of the inpatient general acute care hospital market in central Columbus, including Franklin and Delaware counties, according to the complaint.[2] This share, combined with control over rural facilities essential for broad network coverage, gives the system significant leverage over commercial health insurers.

The nonprofit health system owns or manages 16 hospitals across Ohio, with its flagship Riverside Methodist Hospital in Columbus. Competitors such as The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center and Mount Carmel Health System trail in market influence, as OhioHealth, Ohio State, and Mount Carmel together control over 85% of discharges in the broader Columbus area.[2]

Federal prosecutors highlighted OhioHealth’s ability to charge supracompetitive reimbursement rates, evidenced by higher prices compared to rivals despite mixed quality metrics like Leapfrog safety grades.[2]

Key Contract Restrictions Alleged

The suit centers on two main practices: “all-products” clauses and anti-steering provisions. Under all-products terms, insurers must include every OhioHealth hospital and provider in all commercial networks offered in the region, regardless of cost or quality differences.[2]

Anti-steering rules further block insurers from directing patients to lower-cost alternatives through incentives, tiered networks, or price transparency tools. These restrictions, in place since at least 2003, prevent “budget-conscious” plans like narrow networks or reference pricing.[2]

• All-or-nothing inclusion across all insurance products
• Bans on financial incentives for lower-cost providers
• Prohibitions on sharing comparative price data
• Blocks on tiered or narrow network designs
• Restrictions on site-of-service steering

Insurers covering 85% of commercial business in Columbus face these terms, the complaint states.[2]

Ripple Effects on Costs and Choices

These agreements allegedly shield OhioHealth from price competition, leading to higher premiums, out-of-pocket expenses, and fewer innovative plan options for employers and families. Patients lose access to tailored coverage that rewards cost-effective care.

Rivals struggle to expand or invest in improvements without sufficient volume, while entry barriers persist. The case invokes Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Ohio’s Valentine Act, seeking a court order to halt enforcement of the terms.[2]

Voices from the Front Lines

Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed A. Assefi of the DOJ Antitrust Division emphasized the stakes: “This lawsuit challenges anticompetitive contract restrictions that prevent consumers from choosing lower-cost health plans and severely limit consumers’ access to price information.”[1]

Ohio AG Yost added, “When competition is blocked, consumers end up being the biggest losers.” The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, demands an injunction against future similar restrictions. View the full federal complaint.[2]

OhioHealth spokesman Collin Yoder responded that the system has cooperated with the DOJ review and remains “confident in our position and committed to full compliance with all applicable laws.”[4]

This high-profile challenge could reshape hospital-insurer negotiations nationwide if successful, underscoring federal resolve to curb healthcare consolidation effects. As the case unfolds, it prompts reflection on balancing provider networks with competitive pricing. What do you think about these allegations? Share in the comments.