Are you in the (mostly) lucky group of companies seeking to buy or be bought? This podcast is a ‘must hear’ as likely you’ll be affected. Healthcare law firm Epstein Becker Green’s roundtable podcast in the ‘Diagnosing Health Care’ series is their half-hour condensed view on the new Federal Merger Guidelines that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finalized last 18 December. Their view on how it will affect healthcare organizations is not too different from your Editor’s lengthy review of the DOJ/FTC document published on 20 December. The DOJ/FTC end-of-year drop perhaps (ahem) was timed to bury the bad news, drowning it in a punch bowl of good cheer or in holiday busy-ness.
This Editor (note: not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV or YouTube) took the view that it was that it was a whole scuttle of coal for healthcare holiday stockings
(right) and that it would discourage much of 2024’s healthcare M&A until companies figured what mergers would likely past muster, among other predictions. The EBG folks mostly agree. They also point out that the final Guidelines’ language is “more aggressive” than the draft that many healthcare organizations took issue with–what the article referred to as “substantially more restrictive language and interpretation”. There are some wins from the draft, but much of the language, especially on vertical mergers, simply moved into one or another of the 11 Guidelines.
The EBG team on the podcast (available for play on the web page and download) are Trish Wagner, John Steren, and Jeremy Morris, moderated by Dan Fahey. Below are some key points made by the team on the podcast. Your Editor recommends that you pull up our 20 December article as a reference to the specific Guideline references they make.
- Background: Horizontal merger Guidelines were last updated in 2010. Vertical merger Guidelines were issued in 2020 but later rescinded. These new Guidelines apply to both horizontal and vertical mergers and acquisitions. US antitrust is based on three acts passed by Congress: The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), the Clayton Act (1914), and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, now in US Code Title 15. The Guidelines since then are based on them as well as case law. (From the wrapup) Courts tend to be very deferential to the Guidelines.
- The wording of Guideline #8, When a Merger is Part of a Series of Multiple Acquisitions, the Agencies May Examine the Whole Series, is both interesting and aggressive in that it will be considered and opens up a pattern of acquisitions. This can be by private equity (PE) or other owners.
- Guidelines #1, Mergers Raise a Presumption of Illegality When They Significantly Increase Concentration in a Highly Concentrated Market, and 2, Mergers Can Violate the Law When They Eliminate Substantial Competition Between Firms, impact hospital mergers. Prior merger guidelines focused on highly concentrated markets using a point system (HHI, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, is a common measure of market concentration). This measure sets a lower bar.
- To trigger #1, a market share above 30% and an HHI over 100 can trigger it even in unconcentrated markets.
- On #2, elimination of direct competition is maybe in and of itself harmful
- Guideline #6, Mergers Can Violate the Law When They Entrench or Extend a Dominant Position: for horizontal mergers, ‘entrench’ is in practice the operative term, whereas ‘extend’ applies mainly to vertical mergers. Companies will have to demonstrate that the beneficial competitive effects outweigh the anticompetitive, especially when involving consumers. And they will have to demonstrate why the merger is necessary.
- Wrapping up:
- Ms. Wagner: the Guidelines don’t have the force of law, but they do have impact because they are about the process on how mergers are evaluated. Courts have been very deferential to the Guidelines.
- Mr. Morris: hospital leaders will have to contemplate this “huge change in a moment” which he questioned. He emphasized that organizations involve their antitrust counsel now even earlier than previously.
- Mr. Steren: “healthcare has a bullseye on its back”. It is immediately more restrictive. It fits right in with what current enforcers do in trying to bring “persuasive authority” to bring new, novel, cases into court. He seconded Mr. Morris’ last remark.
This Editor, as the Canary in the Coal Mine, will assume that UnitedHealth Group and others have already anticipated that they will have difficulty now making new acquisitions, obtaining approvals for ones that haven’t been finalized, or making quick sales of units they no longer want (Walgreens). Hospitals will find that divestiture and regional mergers will be discouraged. Acquirers who’ve been concentrating on filling out their platforms with vertical acquisitions may find that these Guidelines are also written to trip them up–and once tripped, each Guideline knocks on another. (For other predicted consequences, see the 20 December article.)
Most Recent Comments