Skip to Main Content

BakerHostetler’s Antitrust and Trade Regulation practice advises providers and other healthcare clients on a variety of antitrust compliance and litigation issues, including antitrust compliance programs; joint purchasing programs and other collaborative ventures; information sharing; credentialing and physician staff issues; hospital and physician contracting issues; provider mergers, including transactions involving hospitals, physicians and other providers; and accountable care organizations.

We provide guidance on potential antitrust issues that may occur with various types of healthcare transactions, such as acquisitions of hospitals and physician practices, network and other provider joint ventures, mergers, and any other type of business combination. We provide support related to hospital merger issues for both the merging parties and related third parties. Our team represents clients involved in government investigations related to healthcare antitrust issues, and we defend healthcare clients facing civil and criminal antitrust challenges brought by both federal and state government agencies and private plaintiffs nationwide.


  • Represent a leading healthcare system against antitrust claims (price fixing) brought on behalf of a purported class of 19,000 registered nurses employed by the defendant hospital systems. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a 52-page opinion.
  • Advise a leading provider of kidney dialysis services with regard to its $3.5 billion acquisition of a competing provider.
  • Represent a hospital in challenging secret payments by a competitor to health insurance brokers.
  • Advise device manufacturers regarding purchase of or sale to competing manufacturers.
  • Represent a leading hospital in antitrust litigation resulting from the revocation of physician staff privileges.
  • Represent a hospital client in a civil action for false and misleading statements and related monopolistic and conspiratorial conduct by clients in an alleged violation of antitrust laws and the Lanham Act. The case was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff after discovery was completed and subsequently dismissed by the court with prejudice.

Featured Insights