throbber
Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 67 PageID: 61122
`
`Not for Publication
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`Civil Action No. 20-18140
`
`OPINION WITH FINDINGS OF
`FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC.
`and ENGLEWOOD HEALTHCARE
`FOUNDATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.
`
`In this hotly contested matter, Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) seeks to stop
`
`Defendant Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. (“HMH”), the largest health system in New Jersey,
`
`from acquiring Defendant Englewood Healthcare Foundation (“Englewood”), an alleged close and
`
`local competitor to two of HMH’s medical centers. Presently pending before the Court is the
`
`FTC’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent HMH and Englewood from consummating
`
`their proposed merger until completion of the pending administrative proceedings. D.E. 133. The
`
`parties agree to the relevant product market but little else. The relevant product market is a cluster
`
`of inpatient general acute care (“GAC”) services sold and provided to commercial insurers and
`
`their members.
`
`Defendants filed a brief in opposition to the FTC’s motion, D.E. 157, to which the FTC
`
`filed a reply, D.E. 228. The parties also filed several motions in limine in advance of the
`
`evidentiary hearing, D.E. 246, 248, 260, 264, in addition to proposed findings of fact and
`
`conclusions of law, D.E. 320-21, 323-29. The Court reviewed the submissions in support of and
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 2 of 67 PageID: 61123
`
`opposition to the motions and held a seven-day evidentiary hearing via videoconference. The
`
`parties also provided post-hearing submissions, D.E. 320, 324, and the Court heard closing
`
`arguments, also via videoconference, on June 2, 2021. For the reasons stated below, the motion
`
`for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.1
`
`I.
`
`WITNESSES
`
`During the evidentiary hearing, the Court heard testimony from the following individuals,
`
`in order of appearance:
`
` Michael Maron; President & Chief Executive Officer, Holy Name Medical
`Center;
`
` Michele Nielsen; Vice President of Network Contracting & New Jersey Market
`Lead, UnitedHealthcare;
`
` Lynda A. Grajeda; Director of Contracting for Medicaid & Medicare,
`Amerigroup of New Jersey2;
`
` Walter C. Wengel, III; Senior Director for the New Jersey Network, Aetna;
`
` Sue Anderson; Principal, The Chartis Group;
`
` Kevin Lenahan; Senior Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, Chief
`Financial Officer, Atlantic Health System;
`
` Dr. Leemore Dafny; Plaintiff’s expert in healthcare and antitrust economics3;
`
` Ken Kobylowski; Senior Vice President for Provider Contracting & Network
`Operations, AmeriHealth New Jersey & AmeriHealth Administrators;
`
`1 The Court has considered all submissions, testimony, and exhibits in this matter. To the extent
`the Court does not expressly address an argument raised by the parties, the Court has considered
`it and found that it does not change the Court’s analysis.
`
`2 Ms. Grajeda testified that Amerigroup only offers Medicaid and Medicare plans in New Jersey.
`Tr. at 282:1-4. The FTC, however, expressly excludes Medicare Advantage and managed
`Medicaid insurers from its relevant product market. FTC Br. at 17 n.42. As a result, the Court
`finds little probative value to Ms. Grajeda’s testimony.
`
`3 Dr. Dafny also testified as a rebuttal expert.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 3 of 67 PageID: 61124
`
` Ryan Tola; President, New Jersey Division, Doyle Alliance Group;
`
` Robert C. Garrett; President & Chief Executive Officer, HMH;
`
` Warren Geller; President & Chief Executive Officer, Englewood;
`
` Dr. Lawrence Wu; Defendants’ expert in healthcare and antitrust economics;
`
` Kristen Strobel; Senior Director of Global Benefits, Becton, Dickinson & Co.;
`
` Patrick Young; President of Population Health, HMH;
`
` Allen Karp; Executive Vice President of Healthcare Management &
`Transformation, Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey;
`
` Mark Sparta; President & Chief Hospital Executive, Hackensack University
`Medical Center;
`
` Kevin C. “Casey” Nolan; Defendants’ expert in hospital operations, capacity and
`strategic planning;
`
` Dr. Gautam Gowrisankaran; Defendants’ expert in the areas of industrial
`organization, economics and econometrics in the healthcare industry;
`
` Dr. Stephen Brunnquell; President, Englewood Health Physician Network;
`
` Dr. Gregg Meyer; Defendants’ expert in the area of healthcare quality, population
`health and value-based care;
`
` Lisa Ahern; Defendants’ expert on cost savings and efficiencies for healthcare
`provider transactions; and
`
` Dr. Patrick Romano; Plaintiff’s rebuttal expert on healthcare quality.4
`
`4 Plaintiff also sought to qualify Dr. Romano as an expert on capacity issues from the hospital
`operations perspective, including calculations of capacity or steps that a hospital could take to
`relieve capacity issues. Defendants challenged Dr. Romano’s qualification regarding capacity
`issues, outside of the limited scope of how capacity challenges impact the quality of care. D.E.
`264. Dr. Romano is a clinical practitioner. He does not have experience with healthcare system
`capacity constraints from the operational viewpoint. As a result, the Court grants Defendants’
`request to preclude Dr. Romano as an expert on operational capacity issues.
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 4 of 67 PageID: 61125
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND, EVIDENCE, and FINDINGS OF FACT
`
`Defendants Englewood and HMH both have hospitals in Bergen County, a densely
`
`populated county in northern New Jersey. Englewood operates a single hospital, while HMH has
`
`two in the county, including one that it owns with a non-party partner.
`
`Hospitals provide inpatient and outpatient care. Outpatient care generally refers to a same-
`
`day medical service, whereas inpatient care requires an overnight stay. Tr. at 48:11.5 The focus
`
`of this case is inpatient care, specifically inpatient GAC services. As to inpatient GAC services,
`
`the type of care is divided into four categories: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary care.
`
`The categories reflect the level of complexity of care; primary care is the least complex and
`
`quaternary care is the most complex. On average, patients need primary and secondary care more
`
`frequently than the higher levels of tertiary and quaternary care. Tr. at 49:7-19. For example,
`
`delivery of a baby without complications is considered primary care. A C-section, by comparison,
`
`reflects secondary care. A baby born with medical complications requiring neonatal treatment
`
`receives tertiary care. Tr. at 49:23-9. Quaternary care includes complex procedures such organ
`
`transplants and high-end cancer care. Tr. at 73:23-25; 736:15-19. Hospitals that provide only
`
`primary and secondary care are often referred to as community hospitals (although some witnesses
`
`used community hospital to refer to an entity that also provided limited tertiary services). See,
`
`e.g., Tr. at 46:24-47:6.
`
`A. Healthcare Providers
`
`The following hospitals and healthcare systems are relevant to the Court’s analysis: (1)
`
`Englewood; (2) Hackensack University Medical Center; (3) Pascack Valley Medical Center; (4)
`
`Holy Name Medical Center; (5) Valley Hospital Medical Center; (6) Bergen New Bridge Medical
`
`5 Citations to “Tr.” refer to the transcript from the seven-day evidentiary hearing in this matter.
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 5 of 67 PageID: 61126
`
`Center; (7) Palisades Medical Center; (8) Mountainside Medical Center; (9) St. Joseph’s Hospital
`
`(2 locations); (10) St. Mary’s General Hospital; (11) RWJBarnabas Health; (12) Atlantic Health
`
`System; and (13) New York city hospitals, including New York Presbyterian, Hospital for Special
`
`Surgery, Mt. Sinai, and Memorial Sloan Kettering.
`
`1. Bergen County Hospitals
`
`Defendant Englewood is a high-quality, community teaching hospital in Bergen County.
`
`Englewood provides primary, secondary, and some tertiary care, including cardiac and cancer
`
`surgery programs. Tr. at 845:13-19, 24-25; 845:25-846:3; 865:12-13. Englewood is licensed for
`
`531 beds and is currently able to operate 350. Englewood, however, frequently operates under its
`
`350-bed capacity. For example, the day before Englewood’s President & Chief Executive Officer
`
`Warren Geller testified in this matter, Englewood’s census was just 222 patients. Tr. at 847:20-
`
`848:16. As to payor mix, about half of Englewood’s patients use government programs, such
`
`Medicare and Medicaid, while the other half have commercial insurance. Tr. at 849:14-18. Of
`
`the commercially insured patients, approximately 55% are Bergen County residents. The
`
`remaining 45% come from Hudson, Essex, Passaic, and Rockland counties, which all border
`
`Bergen County. Tr. at 850:2-6. About half of Englewood’s revenue is generated from patients
`
`outside of Bergen County. Tr. at 851:3-5. Englewood’s growth over the last several years has
`
`come from counties other than Bergen County. Tr. at 850:11-18.
`
`Defendant HMH’s flagship hospital, Hackensack University Medical Center (“HUMC”),
`
`is also located in Bergen County, approximately five miles from Englewood. HUMC is licensed
`
`for 781 beds and has 711 operational beds. Tr. at 1148:9-13. HUMC is the busiest hospital in
`
`New Jersey and more than 50% of HUMC’s commercially insured patients come from outside of
`
`Bergen County. Tr. at 735:3-17; 783:10-14. HUMC is HMH’s only hospital that performs
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 6 of 67 PageID: 61127
`
`complex tertiary and quaternary care, in addition to primary and secondary care. Tr. at 735:3-17.
`
`HUMC is considered an academic medical center. According to Robert C. Garrett, HMH’s
`
`President & Chief Executive Officer, this means that in addition to providing complex tertiary and
`
`quaternary care, HUMC is focused on academics, research, and innovation. Tr. at 735:6-20.
`
`Nevertheless, there is a high overlap in the inpatient GAC services provided by HUMC and
`
`Englewood.
`
`.
`
`HUMC is currently adding a new tower to its hospital complex, which was described as a
`
`“modernization project” and was referred to during the hearing as the “Second Street” project. Tr.
`
`at 1150:23-1151:6. The Second Street project will (1) replace the currently 40-year-old operating
`
`room platform with larger operating rooms that can house equipment and technology used for
`
`complex tertiary and quaternary care; (2) convert existing medical-surgical (“med-surg”) beds into
`
`private rooms; and (3) add twenty-two new intensive care unit (“ICU”) beds. Tr. at 1151:6-18.
`
`HUMC started planning the Second Street project in 2012 and, at the time of the hearing,
`
`anticipated that it would be ready for partial occupancy in approximately 18 months. Tr. at
`
`1151:21-25.
`
`HMH also co-owns, with Ardent Health Services (“Ardent”), Pascack Valley Medical
`
`Center (“Pascack Valley”). Tr. at 769:6-9. Pascack Valley is the smallest acute care community
`
`hospital in Bergen County, providing primary and secondary care, Tr. at 57:12-19; 768:16-18, but
`
`not tertiary care. Tr. at 768:17-18.
`
`Holy Name Medical Center (“Holy Name”) is also in Bergen County. Tr. at 44:19-20.
`
`Holy Name is a Catholic sponsored community hospital that provides primary and secondary care
`
`services. Tr. at 47:2-6. At least 80% of Holy Name’s inpatient admissions come from within
`
`Bergen County. Tr. at 52:18-21. Michael Maron, Holy Name’s President & Chief Executive
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 7 of 67 PageID: 61128
`
`Officer, believes that this is because people want convenient, consistent care that is readily
`
`available. Tr. at 52:25-6. Englewood is approximately five miles northeast of Holy Name, and
`
`there is a significant overlap in the geographic range of patients that the two hospitals service. Tr.
`
`at 56:5-15. With the exception of Englewood’s tertiary care offerings, the two hospitals offer
`
`virtually identical services and are roughly the same size. Tr. at 55:25-56:4; 57:17-18. HUMC is
`
`five miles west of Holy Name. Tr. at 57:4-5. Because of the overlap in services and location,
`
`Holy Name views Englewood and HUMC as its primary competitors. Tr. at 86:10-23; 87:19-25.
`
`Valley Hospital Medical Center (“Valley”) is another hospital in Bergen County. Valley
`
`is the second largest hospital in the county, and offers primary, secondary, and limited tertiary
`
`care. Tr. at 59:1-3. Valley Hospital is currently located in Ridgewood, New Jersey but is
`
`relocating to a new facility about two miles east, in Paramus, New Jersey. Tr. at 88:5-17. Valley’s
`
`new location is a modernization project;
`
` Tr. at 88:13-14; 89:5-13. The project is nearing completion. The new construction will
`
`ultimately take Valley over five years to complete and is estimated to cost more than $750 million.
`
`Tr. at 449:13-23. Because of the location, Garrett believes that Valley’s new hospital will make it
`
`a stronger competitor in the region. Tr. at 776:20-25.
`
`Bergen New Bridge Medical Center (“New Bridge”) is a government-run, county-owned
`
`hospital in Bergen County. New Bridge is predominately a long-term care facility for behavioral
`
`health but has a small acute care component that largely services its long-term care residents. Tr.
`
`at 59:20-60:3. New Bridge has a new management team that is investing in the facility and recently
`
`started to accept commercially insured patients. Tr. at 864:2-9.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 8 of 67 PageID: 61129
`
`2. Health Systems
`
`As noted, HMH is the largest healthcare system in New Jersey. HMH was formed after
`
`Hackensack University Health Network and Meridian Health merged in 2016. Two additional
`
`large health systems play a significant role in the northern New Jersey marketplace, although
`
`neither has a hospital in Bergen County: RWJBarnabas Health (“RWJBH”) and Atlantic Health
`
`System (“Atlantic”). RWJBH has numerous facilities throughout New Jersey, including Saint
`
`Barnabas Medical Center, an academic medical center in Essex County. Tr. at 1108:1-8. In 2017
`
`and 2018, RWJBH was the market share leader within Bergen, Essex, Hudson, and Passaic
`
`Counties. DX3213-019.6 According to Garrett, RWJBH is HMH’s strongest competitor even
`
`though RWJBH does not have an inpatient hospital in Bergen County. Tr. at 774:23-12; 777:16-
`
`19. Atlantic has five hospitals: Morristown Medical Center and Chilton Medical Center, which
`
`are both in Morris County; Overlook Hospital in Union County; Newton Medical Center in Sussex
`
`County; and Hackettstown Medical Center in Warren County. Tr. at 434:1-10. Morristown
`
`Medical Center is also an academic medical center. Tr. at 1108:9-13. Although Atlantic does not
`
`have a hospital in Bergen County, it is affiliated with an urgent care facility in the county through
`
`a joint partnership. Tr. at 434:11-13; 436:17-437:7.
`
`6 On June 1, 2021, Defendants provided the Court with their list of exhibits that they seek to move
`into evidence. D.E. 332. The FTC provided its list on June 7, 2021, D.E. 340, and Defendants
`provided a supplemental list on June 9, 2021. D.E. 344. The parties also set forth a limited list of
`objections to documents on the exhibit lists. D.E. 331, 332, 344. The Court addresses the
`objections to PX1061, the Optimization Plans, and the Waiver Letters below. Otherwise, the Court
`did not rely on any of the documents for which there remain objections so the objections are moot.
`Those exhibits without objections in D.E. 332, 340 and 344 are admitted into evidence.
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 9 of 67 PageID: 61130
`
`3. Non-Bergen County Hospitals
`
`Turning to facilities outside of Bergen County, Palisades Medical Center (“Palisades”) is
`
`in Hudson County, just south of the Bergen County line. Palisades is owned by HMH and provides
`
`primary and secondary care. Tr. at 768:16-18; 769:1-3. HMH also co-owns Mountainside Medical
`
`Center with Ardent. Tr. at 769:6-9. Mountainside is a community hospital in Essex County that
`
`provides primary and secondary care. Tr. at 768:16-18; 769:1-3. St. Joseph’s Hospital and
`
`Medical Center is in Paterson, New Jersey and St. Joseph’s Wayne Hospital is in Wayne, New
`
`Jersey. Wayne and Paterson are both in Passaic County, and both hospitals are within 10 miles of
`
`HUMC. Tr. at 775:17-25. St. Mary’s General Hospital is an additional for-profit hospital in
`
`Passaic County. Tr. at 80:24-6.
`
`Certain New York City hospitals are also relevant. New York Presbyterian, Hospital for
`
`Special Surgery (“HSS”), Mt. Sinai, and Memorial Sloan Kettering (“MSK”) were mentioned most
`
`frequently during the hearing. Although no party denies that some New Jersey residents receive
`
`primary and secondary care at New York hospitals, the witnesses largely view these hospitals as
`
`providing high-end, specialty care (more complex tertiary and quaternary care) to New Jersey
`
`residents. Tr. at 73:20-74:5;
`
`; 397:1-10. As to outmigration – that is, New Jersey
`
`residents seeking medical care at a New York hospital, see, e.g., Tr. at 767:10-11 – less than 30,000
`
`New Jersey residents were discharged from a New York hospital in 2018. DX3601-16.
`
`New York City hospitals are also establishing a physical presence in New Jersey, which
`
`the parties refer to as “front doors.” MSK and HSS, for example, have outpatient facilities in
`
`Bergen County, and Mount Sinai has affiliations with Holy Name and Valley. Tr. at 779:20-
`
`780:13. Other New Jersey health systems, such as Atlantic, do the same. These outpatient
`
`facilities – the front doors – are intended to steer patients requiring inpatient care to an affiliated
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 10 of 67 PageID: 61131
`
`hospital. Tr. at 780:14-16; 780:21-25. The parties, however, failed to provide any evidence
`
`demonstrating that the outpatient facilities actually materially impact inpatient admissions.7 In
`
`fact,
`
`, stated that the number of patients that ultimately came to
`
` hospital for inpatient
`
`care after visiting one of its
`
` facilities accounted for
`
`of
`
` total inpatient admissions over a 1.5-year period.
`
`. With respect
`
`to the number of patients who were initially treated at the Bergen County
`
` facility and
`
`received subsequent inpatient or outpatient care at
`
` hospital,
`
` indicated that the
`
`number was
`
` to
`
` utilization strategy.
`
`.
`
`The parties also consider physician practice groups to be a driver of inpatient admissions.
`
`For example, Geller appeared to attribute Englewood’s overall growth to its expanding physician
`
`network, the Englewood Health Physician Network. Englewood’s physician network is “robust,”
`
`encompassing over 500 physicians in five different counties. In fact,
`
`of Englewood’s revenue
`
`comes from its outpatient services. Tr. at 872:4. Moreover, these 500 physicians, who are fully
`
`integrated into the Englewood network, funnel care to Englewood’s hospital. Tr. at 852:11-14;
`
`853:6-12; 1311:1-10. Dr. Stephen Brunnquell, President of the Englewood Health Physician
`
`Network, explained that the physician network is also a “front door” to the hospital. Tr. at 1309:18-
`
`1; 1313:4-5.
`
`B. Insurance Companies & Plans
`
`Private (or commercial) insurance companies play a major role in the United States’
`
`healthcare system and are the payors at issue here. Within New Jersey, the four major commercial
`
`7 Of course, there could be at least one other rational business reason for establishing outpatient
`facilities without regard to inpatient admissions: they are independently profitable. The parties,
`however, did not address this point, so the Court does not speculate.
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 11 of 67 PageID: 61132
`
`insurance companies, from largest to smallest, are Horizon Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New
`
`Jersey (“Horizon”), UnitedHealthcare (“United”), Aetna, and Cigna. Tr. at 1024:6-10. Within the
`
`commercial insurance sphere, each insurance company offers fully insured and employer-
`
`sponsored (or self-insured) plans. For a self-insured product, the employer bears the financial
`
`responsibility for the medical expenses that are incurred on behalf of its covered employees, and
`
`the employer typically pays the insurance company a fee to administer the plan. Tr. at 151:13-22;
`
`1104:16-22. For a fully insured plan, the insurance company bears the risk if the medical expenses
`
`exceed the premium paid by the employer. Tr. at 151:23-152:5.8
`
`Medical providers and facilities contract with insurance companies to be in the plan’s
`
`“network.” If a provider goes “out of network,” the provider is no longer a participating provider
`
`in that insurance company’s product or plan. Tr. at 1038:14-21. Each insurance company witness
`
`spoke to the importance of a network, which includes physicians, other providers, facilities
`
`(including hospitals), and other services that are offered to plan users. Each insurance company
`
`witness also testified that a network is “an integral component of the products” offered by the
`
`company. See, e.g., Tr. at 152:13-25. Of critical importance is a network with a full scope of
`
`services and providers that are well-dispersed geographically. See, e.g., Tr. at 153:19-23; 156:19-
`
`25; 335:24-336:4 (explaining that Aetna wants a “big network presence” that does not have any
`
`“holes”). Individual members, and therefore plan purchasers, also want access to care that is
`
`geographically convenient.9 See, e.g., Tr. at 155:9-15. If an insurance company does not provide
`
`8 When referring to commercial insurers herein, the Court does not distinguish between fully
`insured and self-insured plans, as the difference is immaterial to the Court’s analysis.
`
`9 The Court notes that New Jersey has GeoAccess standards that apply to certain commercial and
`government plans. These standards generally require that an insurance company’s network offers
`the requisite number of providers and facilities within a certain distance, time, and mileage of the
`insured population. Tr. at 330:2-10.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 12 of 67 PageID: 61133
`
`an attractive network, the insurance company will not be able to sell the plan. See, e.g., Tr. at
`
`154:16-19.
`
`At the same time, healthcare providers and facilities want to be in-network because, among
`
`other things, it increases their volume of patients. See, e.g.,
`
`. Patrick Young, HMH’s
`
`President of Population Health, explained that from HMH’s perspective, it is not a benefit for a
`
`provider to go out of network (or become non-participating). Young testified that if HMH went
`
`out of network with an insurance company, it would cause a significant financial hit for the
`
`organization due to lost revenue, and it would be disruptive to patients and physicians. Tr. at
`
`1039:1-1040:4.
`
`In New Jersey, insurance companies negotiate with health systems and hospitals on a
`
`statewide basis. This means that all of an insurer’s plan members in New Jersey have access to
`
`in-network health systems’ facilities and hospitals. At the same time, counties are important
`
`considerations for insurers in developing and selling a health plan. Bergen County is an important
`
`county because of its population size and affluence. FTC FOF ¶ 19. The relevant insurers have
`
`the following number of customers in Bergen County: United has approximately
`
`commercial members, Tr. at 161:13-15; Aetna has
`
` commercial members, Tr. at 341:9-11;
`
`and AmeriHealth has about 15,000 members, Tr. at 678:6-8. All insurers who testified indicated
`
`that they could not market a plan to Bergen County residents if the plan did not include a Bergen
`
`County hospital.
`
`The Court heard a great deal of testimony about HMH’s experience with commercial
`
`insurance companies, both from HMH’s view and from the perspective of the insurance
`
`companies. HMH negotiates with commercial insurers “as a fully integrated network,” that is, on
`
`a system-wide basis. Tr. at 1024:19-25. This means that HMH negotiates for a consistent (or the
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 13 of 67 PageID: 61134
`
`same) rate increase across all its facilities. The base rate of each facility, however, differs. Tr. at
`
`1026:15-22. Accordingly, the actual rate charged by each specific HMH facility is not uniform
`
`across HMH’s system although each facility’s percentage rate increases are the same. In addition,
`
`the rates HUMC charges insurers for GAC services are substantially higher than the rates that
`
`Englewood charges. On an adjusted case-mix basis,
`
`.10 DX5001,
`
`¶ 162.
`
`The commercial insurance witnesses who testified in this matter largely described their
`
`negotiations with HMH as difficult.
`
`, from
`
` believed that HMH’s position
`
`during
`
` last negotiations with HMH in
`
` were “as close to take it or leave it as I’ve
`
`seen in the marketplace without much justification.”
`
` further believed
`
`that HMH’s most recent rate increases were
`
` than those of other health
`
`systems in New Jersey.
`
`, explained that after
`
`’ discussions for the
`
` contract with HMH hit a “stalemate,” the final rates were only
`
`agreed to
`
`. In
`
` years with
`
`
`
` had never seen
`
`negotiations escalate in such a manner.
`
` stated that the ultimate rate was
`
` of what
`
` typically agrees to for similarly situated hospitals.
`
`
`
`From HMH’s perspective, Young stated that HMH never gets everything that it wants
`
`when negotiating with insurance companies and believes that the commercial insurance companies
`
`have significant leverage. Tr. at 1043:22-23; 1048:2-1050:2. Young also indicated that HMH
`
`10 The case-mix index is used to compare the level of care provided at different hospitals and
`facilities. The higher the case-mix index, the higher the overall acuity, or complexity of care,
`provided at the facility. See Tr. at 191:8-15; 397:6-10.
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 14 of 67 PageID: 61135
`
`never negotiates on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, Tr. at 1043:19-21, but an email provided by the FTC
`
`seems to suggest otherwise. PX1241. In the first paragraph of this email, which was sent by a
`
`HMH employee to
`
` on
`
`, the HMH representative wrote: “
`
`.” Id.
`
`” Id.
`
`In addition to rates, the other sticking point in HMH’s recent negotiations with private
`
`insurers involves language in certain contracts about rates after an HMH acquisition (the
`
`“Acquisition Clause”). The Acquisition Clauses predates HMH and appeared in legacy Meridian’s
`
`contracts with certain commercial insurers. Through the Acquisition Clause, when HMH acquires
`
`an entity, the new facility moves to the same rates as HMH’s similar facilities within a certain time
`
`frame. Tr. at
`
`; 1036:5-14. In other words, once HMH acquires a facility, that
`
`facility can charge insurers more than it used to, pursuant to the Acquisition Clause.
`
`After the FTC filed its opening brief in this matter pointing to the Acquisition Clause, HMH
`
`informed insurers that it was waiving the Acquisition Clause for the Englewood merger. Young
`
`was not aware of
`
`,
`
`,
`
`.
`
`. The Acquisition Clause has had a substantial financial impact on
`
` After
`
`HMH acquired JFK University Medical Center, it cost
`
` more per year; after HMH
`
`acquired Raritan Bay Medical Center, it cost
`
` more per year.
`
` As a result, during the
`
` negotiations,
`
` asked
`
`
`
`.
`
` testified that HMH
`
` The Acquisition Clause was also a major sticking point with
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 15 of 67 PageID: 61136
`
` negotiations.
`
`, however, had
`
`.
`
`. When HMH
`
`previously acquired the Carrier Clinic, HMH and
`
`could not agree as to whether
`
`. The classification impacted
`
`. As a
`
`result, HMH
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ultimately, HMH’s
`
`acquisition cost
`
`and additional
`
`.
`
`.
`
`Horizon is the largest insurer in New Jersey and provides both commercial and
`
`government-sponsored plans. Horizon’s commercial plans account for approximately 60 % of its
`
`business in New Jersey. Tr. at 1092:8-1093:5. Although numerous insurance companies have had
`
`challenges with HMH, Horizon did not voice the same concerns and supports the proposed merger.
`
`DX1101. In fact, after the HMH and Englewood merger was announced, Allen Karp, Horizon’s
`
`Executive Vice President of Healthcare Management and Transformation, sent Young a letter
`
`indicating that Horizon supported the merger.11 DX1101. Karp did so at the request of HMH. Tr.
`
`at 1133:12-15.
`
`In the letter, Karp explained that the merger allows Englewood to “focus on tertiary care
`
`for residents of Bergen County” and provide Englewood’s patients with access to coordinated
`
`quaternary care within the HMH system. DX1101. Karp also stated that HMH’s ability to expand
`
`11 During the hearing, the FTC emphasized the fact that Horizon, HMH and RWJBH are co-owners
`of Braven Health, a new Medicare Advantage program. Tr. at 1131:12-1132:1; 1069:9-25. These
`entities share
` generated by Braven Health, with
`. Tr. at 1075:20-1076:1; 1131:21-23. This relationship creates an additional financial
`incentive for Horizon to keep patients at HMH’s hospitals. The FTC also emphasized the fact that
`except for HSS, Horizon does not have any direct contracts with New York hospitals. Tr. at
`1131:3-11. Again, this also creates a motive to support the merger that is unique to Horizon.
`Similarly, Defendants emphasized that Atlantic and United formed a competing physicians’
`practice group, which gives both United and Atlantic a motive to oppose the proposed merger.
`The Court ultimately gives the various relationships little weight as the evidence did not adequately
`establish how the insurers’ motives resulted in slanted or biased testimony.
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 16 of 67 PageID: 61137
`
`quaternary care would “have the added benefit of keeping care in New Jersey.” Id. Karp does not
`
`believe that the merger would increase HMH’s bargaining leverage with Horizon. Tr. at 1103:16-
`
`24. At the same time,
`
`. Tr. at 1116:19-22. In addition, Karp is not aware what tertiary care will be
`
`provided at Englewood post-merger, or how HMH intends to keep quaternary care patients in New
`
`Jersey after the merger. Tr. at 1128:12-1129:5.
`
`The Court does not give Karp’s letter much weight. It was written at the request of HMH
`
`and while long on superlatives, it is short on supporting information or analysis.
`
`C. The Proposed Merger
`
`In April 2018, Englewood’s Executive Committee and Board’s outside counsel retained a
`
`consultant, The Chartis Group (“Chartis”), to assist with Englewood’s strategic planning. Geller
`
`explained that he
`
`9. Geller continued that Englewood had and has
`
`Tr. at 871:21-25. Englewood also had
`
` Tr. at 871:15-18; 384:6-
`
` but it would be
`
`.
`
`, and wanted an
`
`. Tr. at 872:3-19.
`
`The Court also heard about Englewood’s strategic planning process, which led to the
`
`proposed merger, from Sue Anderson, a Principal at Chartis. Tr. at 383:4-5. Chartis’s work was
`
`divided into two phases; Anderson was highly involved in both. Tr. at 386:17-22.
`
`In Phase I, Chartis looked at whether Englewood could achieve its strategic goals by itself
`
`or whether it needed a “stronger affiliation with another health system.” Tr. at 386:23-387:3.
`
`Chartis presented its Phase I work to the Executive Committee in June 2018. PX2079. Chartis
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-18140-JMV-JBC Document 369-2 Filed 08/25/21 Page 17 of 67 PageID: 61138
`
`identified Englewood’s key local competitors within Englewood’s primary service area (“PSA”)12:
`
`HMH accounted for 34% of inpatient discharges; Englewood for 15%;
`
`. No other New Jersey hospital in the region had a percentage of discharges
`
`larger than 7%. Tr. at 391:9-392-18; 06:14-16; PX2079-16. In addition, about 8% of patients in
`
`Englewo

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket