DOJ files amended Tunney Act response in OhioHealth steering and price-transparency restriction case
Published November 8, 2026 · Coverage November 1–7, 2026, Pacific · Lower priority
The Antitrust Division published in the Federal Register on November 5 its amended response to public comments on the proposed Final Judgment in United States and State of Ohio v. OhioHealth Corporation (S.D. Ohio, No. 2:26-cv-207). The complaint, filed February 20, 2026, alleges OhioHealth's steering and transparency restrictions in payer contracts prevented price competition in the Columbus area in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. DOJ says the proposed judgment would void those restrictions, bar OhioHealth from seeking them in the future and bar it from penalizing payors that steer, offer steered plans or provide price transparency. DOJ received four comments and says it will move for entry of the judgment after Federal Register publication.
Background
Under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, known as the Tunney Act, proposed Final Judgments in antitrust cases brought by the United States are subject to a 60-day comment period, after which the court determines whether entering the judgment is in the public interest. In this case the plaintiffs filed the proposed Final Judgment on June 16, 2026 with a stipulation signed by all parties consenting to its entry after compliance with the Tunney Act, and the United States published the Complaint, the proposed Final Judgment and a Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register on July 23, 2026.
Who this affects
Hospital systems negotiating commercial payer contracts; managed care contracting teams.
Why it matters
Inference: anti-steering, anti-tiering and price-transparency gag clauses in hospital-payer contracts are an active federal antitrust target. California systems should know which of their payer agreements contain such terms; California law on these clauses is outside this record.
Required actions
- None for other hospital systems. The notice says the defendant agreed to abide by the components of the proposed Final Judgment; the judgment itself was proposed, not entered, as of the notice.
Recommended action
- Have managed care contracting and legal inventory anti-steering, anti-tiering and transparency-restriction clauses in commercial payer agreements.
- Track entry of the OhioHealth Final Judgment as a model of the relief DOJ seeks.
Scope and timing
- Authority status
- Pending litigation
- Responsible owner
- Legal; Managed Care Contracting
- Publication date
- 2026-11-05
- Other dates
- Complaint filed 2026-02-20; proposed Final Judgment filed 2026-06-16; initial Response to Comments filed 2026-10-20; amended response published in the Federal Register 2026-11-05 (91 FR 69865). As of that notice the Final Judgment was proposed and not entered; whether it has since been entered was not checked.
Not established
Whether the court has entered the Final Judgment was not checked (no official docket access).
Sources
Complete edition and supplemental material
This article in the complete report →
Executive triage, source-coverage limitations, context and forward horizons remain in the complete report.
Read the entire Enforcement Briefing report →