Amicus Brief: Sidibe v Sutter Health
In Sidibe v. Sutter Health, plaintiffs alleged that they paid supracompetitive prices for health insurance premiums because Sutter Health forced health plans to negotiate with hospitals systemwide, rather than independently. In their brief, COSAL addressed the district court’s two critical errors made when evaluating this contracting. First, the district court excluded evidence from before the class period. However, the history is critical to understanding the background and intent of the decision to contract systemwide. Second, the court went against precedent by addressing the market from the point of view of the insured, rather than from the perspective of the health plans who contracted with Sutter Health. In order to have certain hospitals in their network, the health plans had to accept systemwide contracting. As such, the jury should have been told to focus on their reactions to increased prices, rather than on the plan members. Due to these mistakes, COSAL urged the Court to reaffirm that contemporaneous evidence is relevant to understand the reasons behind the restraint, and in healthcare cases, the focus should be on the insurers. This brief was written by Kristen Marttila, Joseph Bourne, and Randy Stutz.
