ArMA Joins AG Mayes for Announcement of Lawsuit to End Healthcare Price-fixing Scheme in Arizona

June 3, 2026

Separate Federal & State-led Lawsuits Against MultiPlan Seek to End Healthcare Price-fixing

On Monday, Arizona Medical Association President Dr. Jason Jameson and ArMA member Dr. Andrew Carroll joined Attorney General Kris Mayes to support her announcement of a lawsuit aimed at ending healthcare price-fixing in Arizona.


The lawsuit alleges that MultiPlan — a major healthcare technology and network company — and several medical insurers colluded to build a system that routinely underpaid physicians and hospitals for the care they delivered to patients.


ArMA is party to similar federal litigation against MultiPlan and was present during AG Mayes' press conference on the state-led lawsuit to show our support.

Arizona Medical Association president speaks at press conference announcing lawsuit against healthcare price-fixing in Arizona.

Separate Federal & State-led Lawsuits Against MultiPlan Seek to End Healthcare Price-fixing

On Monday, Arizona Medical Association President Dr. Jason Jameson and ArMA member Dr. Andrew Carroll joined Attorney General Kris Mayes to support her announcement of a lawsuit aimed at ending healthcare price-fixing in Arizona.


The lawsuit alleges that MultiPlan — a major healthcare technology and network company — and several medical insurers colluded to build a system that routinely underpaid physicians and hospitals for the care they delivered to patients.


ArMA is party to similar federal litigation against MultiPlan and was present during AG Mayes' press conference on the state-led lawsuit to show our support.


Insurance Companies Named in the Suit

AG Mayes' case alleges that the following major health insurers were a part of the price-fixing scheme, which relied in part on the sharing of confidential claims payment information with and through MultiPlan:

  • Aetna
  • Cigna
  • UnitedHealthcare
  • Humana
  • Elevance
  • Molina
  • Centene
  • Health Care Service Corp.



How the Alleged Scheme Worked, According to the State

According to the complaint filed by the state, MultiPlan guided insurers' price setting for out-of-network care. The recommended prices were produced by MultiPlan's algorithm-driven system, which allegedly assigned low payments for each medical code, regardless of where the care was provided or who delivered it. Insurers using MultiPlan then allegedly paid similar amounts, meaning market competition effectively disappeared.


AG Mayes alleges that artificially low payments were then fed back into the algorithm, pushing future reimbursements even lower. All the while, physicians and hospitals were left with no meaningful way to negotiate, and patients were left with larger medical bills. The Attorney General estimates that, in total, the antitrust scheme cost Arizonans — including hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare professionals — billions of dollars.


The Impacts of Healthcare Price-fixing

As ArMA shared during the lawsuit's announcement, collusion between insurance corporations to systematically underpay physicians for the patient care they have already delivered is more than insulting — it is dangerous for healthcare in Arizona.

Arizona is facing a dire healthcare workforce shortage. Reports project that by 2038, we'll meet just 57% of our patient population's need for primary care, making our outlook the worst in the nation. This is a staggering gap, and insurers' price-fixing schemes — which are driving the physicians our communities trust out of practice — are making it worse.

Ultimately, antitrust schemes in commercial medical insurance mean higher health costs, lower access to quality care, and a weakened healthcare system.


What AG Mayes is Asking

The Attorney General alleges that the actions described above violate two key Arizona laws:

  • Arizona Uniform Antitrust Act
  • Violated through the alleged coordination of a shared algorithm and through exchanging competitively sensitive information to suppress payments
  • Arizona Consumer Fraud Act
  • Violated through the alleged misrepresented value of PPO coverage and the hidden fact that a third-party algorithm was determining payments


Based on these alleged violations, AG Mayes is asking the court to place a permanent injunction on the scheme, return money to those harmed, force MultiPlan and insurers to surrender their profits, and impose civil penalties for the violation of Arizona laws.


Federal Litigation Tackles Same Issue

The Arizona Medical Association, the American Medical Association, and hundreds of physician practices and facilities nationwide are a part of similar federal antitrust litigation against MultiPlan and major insurers. ArMA joined the lawsuit earlier this year.


The case alleges that MultiPlan (Claritev) and major insurers — including UnitedHealth, Elevance, Humana, Aetna, and Cigna — conspired to systematically underpay healthcare practitioners for reimbursements for out-of-network services in an anticompetitive scheme since at least 2015.


The lawsuit aims to end these alleged antitrust actions and recoup financial damages for physicians, other practitioners, and practices.


How Arizona Physicians Can Get Involved With Federal Litigation

Physicians who believe they have been harmed by MultiPlan and the insurance companies, whether in current or past years, can obtain a free case evaluation from one of the attorneys appointed by the court to lead the non-class claims.


Clinicians may not always know whether MultiPlan — or one of its services, such as Data iSight, Viant, NCN, ProPricer, or MARS — re-priced their claims. However, clues can often be found in Explanations of Benefits or remittance advice.


Members of the Arizona Medical Association interested in joining the lawsuit as litigants are eligible for discounted contingency fees. If you believe you've been impacted by MultiPlan's practices, you are encouraged to reach out to an attorney . 


ArMA's Commitment to Ending Antitrust Conspiracies in Healthcare

The Arizona Medical Association is in lockstep with the AG Mayes on combatting anti-trust conspiracies in healthcare. Our involvement in federal litigation has a similar goal to the state-led lawsuit: to ensure physicians are justly compensated for the services they deliver so that patients can access the care they deserve.

ADHS Issues Standing Orders for Flu, COVID-19 Vaccine Access

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
Statewide orders keep pharmacists and physicians authorized to vaccinate Arizonans amid uncertainty over the next ACIP meeting. Statewide Orders Cover the 2026-27 Flu & COVID Season The Arizona Department of Health Services has issued statewide standing orders supporting access to the 2026-27 influenza and COVID-19 vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Arizonans seeking a flu or COVID-19 vaccine should contact their physician or pharmacy to confirm availability. Why the Orders Were Issued Arizona pharmacists may administer vaccines recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for international travel, or vaccines authorized under a prescription, including a physician-issued public health standing order. With the timing of the next ACIP meeting uncertain, ADHS worked with the Arizona Board of Pharmacy to issue statewide standing orders for the flu and COVID-19 vaccines, which function as a prescription allowing pharmacists and physicians across Arizona to administer them to anyone who wants one. ADHS Medical Advisor Weighs In "Vaccines are one of the most important tools we have to protect our communities. The Influenza and COVID-19 vaccines have been proven safe and effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalization, and death. Vaccines help us limit the spread of disease, reduce pressure on our healthcare system and reduce costs," said Dr. Richard Carmona, ADHS public health medical advisor and the 17th U.S. Surgeon General. "We have issued these standing orders to ensure safe and timely access to the vaccines in alignment with scientific and evidence-based guidance." What Arizonans Should Know The standing orders do not require every pharmacy to offer vaccinations, and they do not guarantee insurance coverage for administration. Coverage and out-of-pocket costs vary by plan, so Arizonans should check with their insurance provider before scheduling an appointment. 

Arizona Asks Supreme Court to Halt Prison Health Care Takeover

By Admin User • September 18, 2026
State attorneys seek an emergency stay after lower courts reject bids to delay receivership of the prison health care system. State Makes a Last-Ditch Appeal Attorneys for the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry asked the U.S. Supreme Court this week to delay a court-ordered receivership of the state's prison health care system. The request comes after both a federal district court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause the takeover. In the recent application, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, a representative of the department, argued that the state deserves more time to make its case before surrendering control of its operations, including oversight of its employees and health care budget. Roots of the Case The dispute began in 2012 when inmates sued the department, alleging the prison system's inadequate medical, mental health, and dental care amounted to cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The case went through years of litigation and a failed settlement agreement. In 2023, U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that the health care system was "grossly inadequate." The court ordered the prison healthcare system to comply with more than 150 "quality indicators," but according to court-appointed monitors, the department failed to comply with 131 of the measures. In light of this finding, Silver named Annette Chambers-Smith, former director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, to take over as receiver effective Oct. 19. Arguments on Both Sides Clement argues receivership should be the last resort and that Silver moved to it too quickly. He asserts that the department has made measurable progress, including growing its health care staffing by more than 50%, expanding substance-use treatment access, and adopting a new care model. Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, which represents the roughly 25,000 people incarcerated in Arizona prisons, called the department's request a "Hail Mary" and said Silver had given the department years of opportunities to comply before ordering receivership. What Happens Next The Supreme Court has not yet set a deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the stay request. Separately, the 9th Circuit is now reviewing the merits of the receivership order itself. The department filed its opening brief on Sept. 15, and the plaintiffs' response is due Oct. 15. Information in this article was sourced from the Arizona Mirror .