LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/DOJ Seeks to Limit Physician Testimony in CVS-Aetna Merger Review
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

DOJ Seeks to Limit Physician Testimony in CVS-Aetna Merger Review

May 23, 2019 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

DOJ Seeks to Limit Physician Testimony in CVS-Aetna Merger Review
Source: Bigstock/ Phushutter
Secondary#departmentofjustice#aetna#cvshealth

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and CVS Health Corporation are seeking to block or limit the testimony of the American Medical Association’s (AMA) proposed witnesses in the CVS-Aetna merger review.

As OTW reported back in August 2018 (Can the AMA Block the Pending CVS-Aetna Merger?), CVS agreed to purchase Aetna in December 2017 for $69 billion. This would be a vertical merger, where companies that are not direct competitors, but in similar industries, want to combine.

California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones wrote a 15-page letter asking the DOJ to block the CVS-Aetna deal. The California Insurance Commission is the largest consumer protection agency in California.

The California Insurance Commissioner was joined by other interested organizations, including the American Medical Association, whose president Barbara L. McAneny, M.D., wrote her own letter urging the DOJ to block the merger.

The DOJ officially challenged the CVS-Aetna merger on the grounds that the merger would harm competition in the Medicare Part D market in some locations in the United States.

To settle the DOJ’s antitrust concerns, CVS and Aetna sold Aetna’s Medicare Part D business to WellCare Health Plans. The merger was closed in November.

However, under the Tunney Act, courts have the power to review DOJ decisions. Federal District Court Judge Richard Leon ordered a Tunney hearing to review the parties’ consent decree. Judge Leon’s review is limited to determining whether the merger is in the public’s best interest.

Judge Leon has previously voiced skepticism of the deal that CVS and Aetna struck with the DOJ. He has previously said that the settlement only addresses “about one-tenth of 1%” of the issues.

Advertisement

Judge Leon released a list of witnesses that consisted of representatives of groups that had filed amici curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs against the deal, including the American Medical Association and the American Antitrust Institute.

CVS and the DOJ have objected to the American Medical Association’s proposed economics and health experts, Richard Scheffler and Neeraj Sood, and antitrust legal expert, Tim Greaney. The government also objected to other witnesses proposed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Consumer Action, and U.S. PIRG.

Attorneys for CVS and the DOJ have argued that these witnesses should not be allowed to testify because the testimony is likely to be outside of the bounds of the limited scope of the Tunney hearing.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy