Indianapolis-based Anthem argued merging with Cigna would allow the resulting insurer to have more negotiating power in the market and lower prices for consumers. However, Judge Amy Berman Jackson said in her 12-page order the two insurers’ inability to work together contrasted with the enhanced cooperation Anthem argued would save consumers money.
For instance, during the trial, officials from Cigna warned against Anthem’s post-merger outlook, according to the judge’s order. According to The New York Times, this lack of cooperation could resurface when it comes to the deal’s breakup fee. Some analysts suggest Anthem may argue Cigna did not try hard enough to close the deal and as a result should not receive the full fee.
Matthew Cantor, partner at Constantine Cannon, told Becker’s Hospital Review he thinks “Cigna and Anthem are jockeying over whether the breakup fee will be paid and if so, whether the full amount will be paid. I wouldn’t be surprised if the parties ended up in some type of dispute resolution process over whether or not Cigna made best efforts to close the deal.”
More articles on payer issues:
Bill to eliminate Colorado’s health insurance exchanges passes first vote
UnitedHealth expects $4B loss in premium revenues from ACA exchange withdrawal
Anthem-Cigna deal blocked, Humana reports revenue dip and layoffs, Centene revenue soars & more — 9 payer highlights
