Ms. Coakley’s office didn’t indicate which changes it would try to make to the agreement. Under the original tentative settlement, Partners would have to limit future price increases across its network to the rate of general inflation through 2020. The settlement would also limit Partners’ joint contracting with commercial payers. Ms. Coakley — who is also a Democratic gubernatorial candidate — has faced criticism from political rivals, economists and other healthcare organizations for striking an agreement with Partners rather than suing the system to stop the transactions, according to the report.
In July, Massachusetts Suffolk Superior Court Judge Janet L. Sanders ruled the settlement’s court approval would be delayed because of the Health Policy Commission’s initial report on the Partners-Hallmark merger. The next hearing concerning the settlement is Sept. 29.
The decision to renegotiate follows a final report from the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission finding that Partners’ takeover of Hallmark would be anticompetitive and raise spending on medical care by $15.5 million to $23 million per year. Partners and Hallmark has said the merger will actually decrease medical costs by $21 million annually over five years because of more efficient care delivery.
More articles on Partners HealthCare:
Massachusetts officials blame Blue Cross, Partners for healthcare spending growth
Economists oppose Partners, South Shore merger
15 things to know about the deal between Partners HealthCare, Massachusetts AG Martha Coakley