Four takeaways from hearing on the attorney general settlement with Partners Healthcare

William Matlack, division chief of the antitrust division for the attorney general, stands as he speaks to Suffolk Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders about the reasoning behind the settlement agreement.
-Jessica Bartlett

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders walked through the minutia of the settlement between Partners HealthCare and Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office at a hearing on Monday, undertaking a detailed analysis of the arguments .

Several times, William Matlack, Coakley’s antitrust division chief, said that the settlement would be better than to litigate to block the hospital mergers and lose in that fight. Partners would then be able to acquire South Shore Hospital and Hallmark Health without constraint.

Sanders agreed that the settlement was a solution for the anticompetitive effects of the merger, but not a solution for the cause of the problem, noting that to approve the settlement would ultimately leave Partners at an even bigger market advantage without oversight.

Sanders also said she needed to look to see if the settlement was enforceable.

Matlack said he was reluctant to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the case the attorney general could have brought against Partners because litigation might be a next step if the settlement is denied.

The reason the attorney general chose to settle with Partners was because the litigation risks were too high, Matlack said.

Sanders wondered if the tactic was to allow the federal agency to prosecute Partners on an antitrust lawsuit if the settlement was denied.

Source: Four takeaways from hearing on the attorney general settlement with Partners Healthcare