MultiPlan Anti-Trust Lawsuit: The Latest Updates for Arizona Physicians

July 9, 2026

An Update on Federal Litigation to End Healthcare Price-fixing

The Arizona Medical Association is a plaintiff in the In re MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation, a federal antitrust case alleging that MultiPlan and major health insurers colluded to suppress out-of-network reimbursement rates paid to physicians and other clinicians. ArMA is seeking an immediate end to this anti-competitive conduct.


Judge Denies Defendants' "Unclean Hands" Defense 

On June 24, Judge Kennelly denied the defendants’ motion to amend their pleadings to assert an “unclean hands” defense. The defendants sought to allege that improper billing practices by the plaintiffs inflated the reimbursement amounts they bill to the payers, and that the plaintiffs are barred from bringing antitrust claims as a result. Judge Kennelly rejected the defendants’ request, ruling that defenses like “unclean hands” can’t be used to hinder enforcement of federal antitrust law.


Plaintiffs Name Additional Co-conspirators 

At the June 26 case management conference, Judge Kennelly granted a motion by several bellwether plaintiffs to name additional alleged co-conspirators as defendants. The parties and Judge Kennelly also discussed the ongoing exchange of evidence from the defendants and scheduling orders for upcoming deadlines, source code production, and trial dates.


How to Get Involved

The case remains in active discovery, with the 36 bellwether plaintiffs continuing to have their cases worked up for trial. However, any member who wants to file a case still can do so.


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. 


For more information, read our recent press release.

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 .