6 things to know about antitrust case restrictions for Aetna and Humana in-house lawyers

Special master Richard Levie, who is overseeing the evidence gathering process in the antitrust case, rejected a request from four in-house lawyers for Aetna and Humana to review confidential information, Corporate Counsel reports

Here's what you should know.

1. Mr. Levie — the court-appointed official ensuring judicial orders are executed properly — sided with the Justice Department and ruled "that the risk for inadvertent disclosure outweighed the need for the four in-house lawyers to have access to confidential information."

2. Mr. Levie wrote that the information would be "impossible to forget."

"Providing defendants' in-house counsel with access to the confidential information of other insurers undoubtedly risks giving defendants an unfair advantage in competition in the insurance marketplace," he said.

3. Mr. Levie, in a footnote, said because the counsel would have access to confidential information, it would make them of interest to direct competitors.

4. Before Mr. Levie made his ruling, lawyers from the Justice Department also opposed the request. Their request also questioned the need for lawyers to review confidential material.

5. The in-house lawyers argued that the information would make their legal advice more effective, and would allow them to help the companies' outside lawyers.

6. The in-house lawyers will not challenge Mr. Levie's ruling.

More coding, billings and collections news:
Minnesota boasts lowest monthly insurance premium — 10 states with the lowest & highest premiums
CMS to stop consumers from cutting ACA enrollment corners: 7 considerations
BCBS vs. Republicans: The debate over the ACA's reinsurance program

Copyright © 2024 Becker's Healthcare. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Cookie Policy. Linking and Reprinting Policy.

 

Featured Webinars

Featured Whitepapers

Featured Podcast