DOJ Sues NY-Presbyterian: Hospital’s ‘Anti-Steering’ Rules Blocked Cheaper Insurance, Drove Up Patient Costs
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed an antitrust lawsuit against New York-Presbyterian Hospital, alleging the health system used contractual restrictions to limit competition and drive up healthcare costs for patients in New York.
The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, accuses the hospital system of violating the Sherman Act by imposing terms in its agreements with insurers that restrict the types of health plans they can offer. Prosecutors say those provisions effectively prevent insurers and employers from creating lower-cost insurance options.
According to the Justice Department, New York-Presbyterian — one of the largest hospital networks in New York City — required insurers to include the system in their provider networks and discouraged plans that would steer patients toward competing hospitals. The lawsuit also alleges the system barred insurers from offering incentives, such as reduced copays, for patients who choose less expensive providers.
Federal officials argue that these restrictions shield the hospital system from price competition and make it harder for rival hospitals to attract patients based on cost or value. As a result, prosecutors say, consumers face fewer affordable insurance options and higher overall healthcare expenses.
“Millions of New Yorkers pay more for healthcare because of these anticompetitive practices,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “At the direction of President Trump, this Justice Department will fight relentlessly to ensure that Americans get the healthcare they need without facing exorbitant costs.”
“Healthcare is a vital sector of our nation’s economy that touches the life of every single American,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed A. Assefi of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “New York-Presbyterian has known for years that the American consumer wants budget-conscious health plans that reduce healthcare costs. But rather than offer consumers choice, New York-Presbyterian uses its market power to protect its margins, impede competition from rival hospitals, and prevent employers and unions from creating these plans. The Antitrust Division will continue to hold hospitals violating the antitrust laws accountable. I am grateful for the dedicated work of our staff and the Southern District of New York in this matter.”
The government is seeking a court order to block the use of such contract provisions, which it says impede the development of “budget-conscious” health plans. These types of plans, officials note, are more common in other regions of the country and are designed to lower premiums by encouraging patients to use lower-cost providers.
New York-Presbyterian operates multiple hospitals and outpatient facilities across the city and surrounding areas, and prosecutors describe it as a dominant player in the local healthcare market.
Federal officials say the lawsuit is part of a broader effort to address rising healthcare costs by promoting competition among providers and expanding consumer choice. The outcome of the case could have implications for how hospital systems nationwide structure their contracts with insurers.
“The high cost of healthcare is frustrating to every New Yorker,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the Southern District of New York. “Our Office will continue to work with our partners in the Antitrust Division to investigate and confront anticompetitive practices that contribute to higher healthcare costs.”
Feds Launch Civil Rights Probes After Allegations of Assault, Voyeurism in Women’s Prisons Housing Male Inmates Who Identify as Female
The U.S. Department of Justice has opened federal civil rights investigations into prison housing policies in California and Maine, focusing on whether the placement of transgender women—biological males who identify as female—in women’s correctional facilities violates inmates’ constitutional rights.
In letters sent to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Maine Gov. Janet Mills, the department said it will examine whether the states engaged in a “pattern or practice” of constitutional violations in women’s prisons.
“Keeping men out of women’s prisons is not only common sense – it’s a matter of safety and constitutional rights,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “The Trump Administration will not stand by if governors are facilitating the abuse of biological women under the guise of inclusion.”
“Under my leadership, the Civil Rights Division will not allow women incarcerated in jails or prisons to be subject to unconstitutional risks of harm from male inmates,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon. “These investigations will uncover whether the dangerous national trend of housing men in women’s prisons has resulted in violations of women’s constitutional rights.”
The investigations will review conditions at the California Institution for Women and the Central California Women’s Facility, as well as the Maine Correctional Center (Windham).
Federal officials said they are looking into allegations involving safety concerns, including reported incidents of sexual harassment and assault, voyeurism, and intimidation within women’s facilities where male inmates who identify as transgender are housed.
The Justice Department said the review will assess possible violations of constitutional protections under the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, as well as Equal Protection and First Amendment rights. The department also cited federal statutes governing institutionalized persons and religious rights.
Officials said the investigations were prompted by complaints and reports from inmates and advocacy groups alleging that female prisoners were exposed to unsafe conditions when housed with male inmates.
“California’s Transgender Respect, Agency, and Dignity Act has provided none of these qualities to the female inmates of state prisons who have been forced to share space with biological men who are violent felons,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Bill Essayli of the Central District of California. “Our Constitution protects women from having their civil rights violated by harmful state legislation wrapped in the language of ‘equity’ and ‘progress.’”
California law allows incarcerated individuals to request placement in facilities consistent with their gender identity, including transfers to women’s prisons. Federal officials said they will examine how those policies are implemented and whether they contribute to constitutional violations.
In Maine, the department said it will review allegations that a male inmate was housed in a women’s facility despite complaints from other prisoners about harassment and assault.
The Justice Department emphasized that no conclusions have been reached and said the investigations are intended to determine whether systemic legal violations exist.
The inquiries are being conducted under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, which allows federal review of correctional systems for patterns of constitutional violations. The department also said it will review potential religious rights issues under federal institutionalized persons law.
Federal officials described the investigations as part of broader oversight of state correctional systems and said prior reviews have sometimes resulted in reforms through negotiated agreements.
“Incarcerated individuals can be particularly susceptible to having their rights violated,” said Andrew B. Benson, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to protecting the civil rights of all Maine citizens, no matter where they live, and will work with our colleagues in the Civil Rights Division to ensure that this vulnerable population is protected from harm while housed in state custody.”
California and Maine officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Justice Department said it is also gathering information on similar policies in other states and encouraged individuals with relevant information to come forward through a federal reporting system.
Handcuffed, Driven to a Field, Then Beaten: Ex-Missouri Officer Convicted for Breaking Suspect’s Jaw
A former police officer in Northwoods, Missouri, has been convicted in federal court of violating a man’s civil rights and related offenses stemming from a 2023 arrest that prosecutors said ended in a violent assault.
A jury in the U.S. District Court in St. Louis on Wednesday found Samuel Davis, 28, guilty of deprivation of rights under color of law, witness tampering through misleading conduct, and falsifying records in a federal investigation. Jurors also concluded that Davis had improperly disabled his body-worn camera during the incident. He was acquitted on a separate conspiracy charge.
A co-defendant, former officer Michael Hill, 54, was acquitted of all charges.
Federal prosecutors said the case centered on Davis’s treatment of a handcuffed suspect following a shoplifting call on July 4, 2023. According to trial testimony and evidence presented in court, Northwoods police responded to a Walgreens store after staff reported a suspected theft. The suspect, identified in court as C.G., was detained at the scene by Davis.
Prosecutors said C.G. was compliant while handcuffed and was placed in Davis’s patrol vehicle for transport. Instead of taking him to jail or a police facility, Davis drove him to a remote field in Kinloch, where the assault allegedly occurred.
C.G. testified that Davis used pepper spray, struck him with a baton while he was restrained, and deployed a Taser. The injuries included a broken jaw, which was later confirmed in medical records introduced at trial.
Witness testimony indicated that a passerby came upon the scene during the incident, prompting Davis to leave the area. The witness later returned and found C.G. injured and calling for help, according to court records.
Responding officers with the St. Louis County Police Department and medical personnel were told by C.G. that he had been assaulted by a Northwoods officer. Investigators later documented injuries consistent with his account, including the jaw fracture.
Evidence presented at trial also showed that Davis failed to file a report documenting the arrest, the transport, or any use of force. Prosecutors said he also turned off his body-worn camera during the encounter. TASER records introduced at trial indicated the device had been activated around the time of the alleged assault.
Federal prosecutors argued that the conduct violated the victim’s constitutional rights and represented an abuse of law enforcement authority.
“Law enforcement officers are entrusted with significant authority and responsibility,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement following the verdict. “The jury’s decision reflects accountability when that trust is violated.”
Davis faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison on the civil rights violation charge and up to 20 years on the additional convictions. Sentencing will be scheduled at a later date.
About the Author
