DOJ Settles Antitrust Claims Against OhioHealth Over Contract Terms
DOJ and Ohio Attorney General settle antitrust lawsuit over OhioHealth's insurer contract restrictions.
Why it matters: Healthcare legal teams and compliance officers must track enforcement shifts to update contracts and avoid legal risks amid rising federal scrutiny of healthcare payer-provider agreements.
- DOJ and Ohio Attorney General announced a settlement with OhioHealth on June 16, 2026, resolving antitrust allegations.
- OhioHealth agreed to remove contract terms limiting insurers from steering patients to lower-cost plans, without admitting wrongdoing or paying fines.
- A five-year compliance monitor will oversee OhioHealth's adherence to the settlement terms.
- The White House Council of Economic Advisors published a June 18, 2026 report recommending bans on anti-steering, anti-tiering, and all-or-nothing contract provisions.
- Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson stated the settlement enhances patient choice and equitable competition.
On June 16, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Ohio Attorney General's Office announced a settlement resolving antitrust claims against OhioHealth Corporation, a health system operating 16 hospitals and outpatient centers across Ohio. The DOJ alleged OhioHealth used its market dominance to impose contracting restrictions that prevented insurers from directing patients toward more affordable health plans, thereby suppressing competition and raising care costs for Ohio residents.
As part of the settlement, OhioHealth agreed to eliminate contract provisions that restricted insurers from offering or steering patients to lower-cost insurance options. Notably, OhioHealth did not admit any wrongdoing and will not pay monetary penalties. The agreement includes the appointment of an independent compliance monitor for five years to oversee OhioHealth's adherence to the settlement terms.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward underscored the DOJ's commitment to enforcing antitrust laws against corporate practices that limit affordable healthcare access, emphasizing that such practices will face legal challenges. While no direct DOJ or OhioHealth settlement statements were publicly linked, the timing and details were covered by major news outlets.
Adding to the regulatory context, the White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) published a report on June 18, 2026, recommending that federal and state policymakers ban anti-steering, anti-tiering, and all-or-nothing clauses in payor-provider contracts. These contract terms restrict insurers' ability to promote lower-cost plan options to consumers. The CEA report advocates these bans to promote competition and decrease national healthcare costs. The full report is available here.
Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson issued a statement praising the settlement for advancing patient choice and fostering fair competition in the state's healthcare market. This settlement and the White House report together highlight a growing federal and state focus on the antitrust implications of healthcare contracting practices.
For legal and compliance professionals in healthcare, these developments signal the need to review existing payer contracts, especially regarding clauses that could be perceived as limiting patient options or opposing competition. Adapting contracting and compliance strategies now can reduce the risk of future enforcement actions.
By the numbers:
- June 16, 2026 — Settlement date between DOJ, Ohio Attorney General, and OhioHealth.
- Five years — Duration of compliance monitoring under the settlement.
- June 18, 2026 — Date of White House Council of Economic Advisors report recommending contract reforms.
What's next: Legal teams should watch for forthcoming state and federal guidance on implementing bans on restrictive contract provisions following the CEA report.